I love this, "MPPF Servicing Stand Stair Modification 90 percent Design Review". I'm sorry, I just found that funny. It just seemed so random. With the enormity and complexity of this effort and the fact, as the article illustrates, that we have once again subcontracted the living heck out of this system, that they included the percentage of how far along they are on designing the modifications to a set of stairs.

Hopefully ESA gets the service module put together. Apparently ATV technology is tricky to rush order. Still, given ESA has built Columbus and Spacelab for the shuttle in addition to the ATVs, they should reasonably know what they're doing.

from EM-1 Orion crew module set for first weld milestone in MayThe crew module is currently at the Launch Abort System Facility (LASF) at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) before being turned over to KSC Ground Operations.

Is there a current list of the Orion abort tests? Or a discussion thread?

I recall Pad Abort 1 back in May 2010 at White Sands.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18511.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18511.0)

I did a little research:Then there's Ascent Abort 2, using the Orion Abort Test Booster from CC SLC-46, scheduled for December 2018.http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/nasa/nasa-official-talks-ascent-abort-2/ (http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/nasa/nasa-official-talks-ascent-abort-2/)(Is the above an ok source to quote?)http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/atb.htm (http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/atb.htm)

Is PA-1 and AA-2 the full list of Orion abort tests?I'm guessing AA-1 (and others) were cancelled along the torturous Orion development path?

Modifications are being made inside the Multi-Payload Processing Facility (MPPF) at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. This is a close-up view of the service platform that will be used for offline processing and fueling of the Orion spacecraft and service module stack before launch. The Ground Systems Development and Operations Program (GSDO) is overseeing the upgrades to the facility

Modifications are being made inside the Multi-Payload Processing Facility (MPPF) at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. This is a close-up view of the service platform that will be used for offline processing and fueling of the Orion spacecraft and service module stack before launch. The Ground Systems Development and Operations Program (GSDO) is overseeing the upgrades to the facility

A finished Orion spacecraft has three fairings, or panels, that protect the service module radiators and solar arrays from heat, wind and acoustics during ascent into space. For the purposes of collecting data during these tests, only one fairing was separated.

The separation took about three seconds and the design changes tested were:New push-off springs that push on the fairing for a longer period of time to provide increased safety and reliability.As part of an ongoing mass reduction effort, the team used four crew module structural attachments instead of six.Star trackers, or cameras that provide positioning from the stars, are used for navigation on the spacecraft. The fairing separation system pulls off the star tracker covers which prevent contamination before launch, and this process was tested for the first time.

In addition, these tests evaluated different pyrotechnic variances and higher load cases in order to prepare for Exploration Mission-1, when Orion is launched on NASA’s new Space Launch System rocket. The team was also able to collect shock data, which will be provided to the European Space Agency (ESA) to support their work designing, building and testing the service module. In fact, these same fairings will be used for service module acoustics and vibe testing taking place at NASA’s Plum Brook facility in Ohio later this year.

“The fairing separation is one of our very first critical events,” said Mike Hawes, Lockheed Martin Orion vice president and program manager. “If it doesn’t work as planned, it’s probable the mission cannot continue, and tests like this help ensure it will work right the first time and every time.”

Gerst dances around the question about how far Orion will travel on Mars missions (because Orion's unlikely to be able to go to Mars).

Indeed; anyone whose done vehicle calculations knows Orion is little better than a taxi in Cislunar space and a lead paperweight at Mars. Maybe there's a way to utilize the capsule portion of Orion for atmospheric entries, but at Mars they'd need a totally different parachute system with some retropropulsion (which Orion lacks yet something like Dragon 2 has). At best Orion would be awkward at Mars. It's best function would be to ferry crew from Earth to an assembly point in HEO, LRO, or the Lunar Lagrange points.

Mr. Lightfoot mentions an ISS resupply mission as an option for one Orion mission. That would be a crazy use of SLS/Orion. Please no! That's just silly use of SLS and Orion.

The Orion's docking ability should be tested before it goes to deep space.

Orion is not really a deep space vehicle, since it's life support is limited, and the crew space is very limited. At best it would be used for trips to the region of the Moon and back (which was the original CxP task for it).

Quote

Launch a LEO mission with a new 30-40 ton spacestation. The astronauts can then commission the spacestation and test docking procedures.

If all you need to do is test the docking system, it would be cheaper to dock with the ISS than to build a brand new type of space station. Still a big waste of money though, since docking issues are pretty rare. Or use the USA to send up a dummy mass with a docking adapter with the Orion so the Orion can practice on it - which would be far cheaper, and wouldn't cause such a big delay as waiting for a customer space station to be built would be.

Quote

The extra mass allows the spacestation to have its own station keeping module and say a set of arms turning it into a flying spaceship yard.

Something for the private sector to do, not NASA. NASA shouldn't be expected to do everything, nor is it funded to do everything.

It is a No Later Than (NLT) not a No Earlier Than (NET). They are still targeting 2021. This isn't an official delay like what happened with EM-1. Also they are basing it on the President's budget and the current President isn't a supporter of SLS/Orion.

If the next President decides to support the SLS/Orion program the time will come back.

The funding levels given by NASA today result in a deficit of $1.5 Billion dollars below what Congress has authorized time and time again. If we go with what Congress has authorized we reach the level of funding NASA says is needed sometime in 2021-2022.

I don't get it...why not use a Dragon 2 or Boeing Starliner to drop the crew off to cis- Lunar Space ?...even if you have to modify Dragon or Starliner, it's got to be less expensive then building Orion ?

Seems like every PowerPoint to date had pictures of Orion at Mars...and now it's not going there ???...ok, for good reasons perhaps but then why do you need what is a beefed up taxi ??

I don't get it...why not use a Dragon 2 or Boeing Starliner to drop the crew off to cis- Lunar Space ?...even if you have to modify Dragon or Starliner, it's got to be less expensive then building Orion ?

Starliner doesn't have the heat shield or life support needed. Dragon has the heat shield but it doesn't have the life support or propulsion capability.

If Orion is to re-enter from a deep space mission, at higher speeds than from a Lunar mission, is the only required change from the current design a beefier heat shield? Self contained life support is not an issue, since the Orion would be part of a much larger craft with its own life support.

Still, the Orion design makes no sense to me for deep space - it is way over-engineered for that task.

The actual plan for Orion has always been one that involves missions to Mars. However, Orion – per documentation (L2) – is unlikely to make that trip

William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, intimated – without directly citing – Orion will play an important role in the initial and final elements of such a mission, pointing to a role that will involve technological validation work in the “proving grounds” of deep space, before a role ferrying astronauts to Cislunar space, where they will board the transportation to the Red Planet.

If Orion is to re-enter from a deep space mission, at higher speeds than from a Lunar mission, is the only required change from the current design a beefier heat shield? Self contained life support is not an issue, since the Orion would be part of a much larger craft with its own life support.

Still, the Orion design makes no sense to me for deep space - it is way over-engineered for that task.

As well as a beef up heat shield, must be able to be functional for the duration of the mission.

As I see it. The Orion only have 2 main tasks for currently envisaged deep space missions. First get the crew to a larger interplanetary spacecraft or a cis-Lunar vehicle stack in LEO from the Earth. Second return the crew from a deep space mission to Earth with a splashdown in the Ocean. Both tasks with 4 crew members abroad.

IMO, the Orion is too big as crew taxi and reentry vehicle but too small to be use as habitat for any mission beyond cis-Lunar space.

At one time, the conop was for Orion to fly crew to the MTV and then serve as backup control center and safe refuge. Upon return from Mars, Orion would detach from the MTV at lunar distances and perform a divert maneuver, targeting for entry (while the MTV flies by earth). Orion would have to sustain the crew for a few days until landing.

Can this capsule land on Mars? No. The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars? No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed. Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.Is this capsule intended for lunar missions? No. President says so. NASA says so. Congress says so.Is this capsule intended for ISS? No. There are far cheaper spacecraft.Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous? It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

Can this capsule land on Mars? No. The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars? No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed. Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.Is this capsule intended for lunar missions? No. President says so. NASA says so. Congress says so.Is this capsule intended for ISS? No. There are far cheaper spacecraft.Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous? It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing?? Why are we doing this??

Yet NASA continues to lie to the public about this. They claim on facebook all the time that it is "The spacecraft that will take us to Mars some day."

Also, I thought they did design the heatshield to withstand that kind of re-entry. Even SpaceX is claiming the Dragon can. Is there a source/article/forum thread that discusses what trajectories it can handle?

Can this capsule land on Mars? No. The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars? No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed. Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.Is this capsule intended for lunar missions? No. President says so. NASA says so. Congress says so.Is this capsule intended for ISS? No. There are far cheaper spacecraft.Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous? It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing?? Why are we doing this??

Orion was designed for cis-lunar operations. It would be great for going to a gateway station at EML-2 and with a small module as part of its SLS launch it could be used for lunar or asteroid missions. It can also be upgraded for Mars missions, assuming the MTV is discarded. If the MTV is reusable, Orion can meet it at EML-2 to transfer the crew. It's a good BEO vehicle.

Unfortunately, the current administration gave up on lunar exploration and Congress hasn't funded any missions. So "Why are we doing this?" is a good question.

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Apollo cost 150 billion in today's dollars. So, meh, seems about ballpark with historical precedent. The CSM was one of 3 major components for Apollo: Saturn V, CSM and the LM. If a modern replacement each cost 17 billion to develop, all three components would cost about 50 billion or one third of Apollo's total cost. Could some capitalist probably do it cheaper working out of their proverbial garage than a government program: yeah, probably.

If the powers that be wanted to give Lockheed Martin another $17 Billion maybe they just should have ordered another hundred or so F-35's. At least then there would be something to show for it, rather than a vehicle for a trip to nowhere. This program brings to mind a family of 5 that wants to go camping who spend all of their money to buy a Ferrari to drive to the campground, only to discover that it only seats 2 and has no room for tents or supplies. I know that sounds childish and bitter, but I had no sleep last night and am disgusted that the space program is in its current state. I was hoping for a moon base by now, for petes sake. Perhaps my usual optimism will return after a good night sleep.

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Whenever NASA says that the Orion can be used for anything, what they're really saying is that it doesn't really have a purpose -- and that means that the design of the capsule was driven by no particular goal or purpose other than to keep money flowing. Most of that money should be considered a kind of "aerospace welfare" fund, which kept NASA employees and contactors busy during the post-Shuttle doldrums. (Just like ISS development funds were given to the Russians in part to keep their scientists and engineers from defecting to weapons development at home or abroad.)

I often think of this as the primary misson of SLS/Orion -- to keep workers on the payroll until something better comes along. We may see SLS and Orion achieve some of the fantastic goals hinted at by NASA, but honestly I doubt it. By the time these systems are operational in the mid-2020's, I suspect they'll be obsolete already. Much depends on what goes on with the likes of SpaceX, Orbital/ATK, Boeing, and ULA.(And maybe Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin.)

Consider SpaceX's Dragon, for example. I suspect the main hindrance to allowing the Dragon a longer tenure in space is not the capsule design, but the service module and life-support systems (much as it is with the Orion system). Given Elon's aspirations, SpaceX is no doubt hard at work at integrating life-support systems that will allow Dragon to support crews in orbit on the order of at least several weeks. That's enough time to allow a mission to, e.g., a Bigelow station at earth-moon L2 or something similar. Boeing's CST-100 (I guess I should call it the "Starliner" now) is likewise probably adaptable to cislunar operation, given a robust enough service module.

The question of "what's it for?" is going to dog Orion and SLS forever, because neither NASA nor the industrial contractors can admit that the actual purpose of these systems is to create (or maintain) aerospace jobs on the ground, not to enable the exploration of space. If this seems like an echo of the mid-1970's era of NASA and development of the Shuttle, you know what they say about the past repeating itself.

Can this capsule land on Mars? No. The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars? No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed. Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.Is this capsule intended for lunar missions? No. President says so. NASA says so. Congress says so.Is this capsule intended for ISS? No. There are far cheaper spacecraft.Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous? It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing?? Why are we doing this??

Nice strawman arguments. Nobody ever claimed Orion would land on Mars. Most missions would require the use of a mission-specific module, which would also be true of any other spacecraft going somewhere in deep space.

The baseline mission plans I've seen assume a maximum reentry speed of 12.4 km/s, so I think it is safe to assert that the Orion can handle reentry speeds at least up to 12.4 km/s, and yes, there are Mars return trajectories with reentry speeds less than 12.4 km/s.

It is an internet myth that the Orion cannot handle Mars return speeds. I have never seen this claim be substantiated anywhere.

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Apollo cost 150 billion in today's dollars.

Well, sure, but we got something for our money. Apollo went from essentially zero to a functional moon rocket in ten years. New technologies for everything from engines to life-support and computers had to be invented from scratch. So it cost a lot, but given the Herculean task, it's amazing that it was done at all.

But what has Orion provided (or will it provide) to offset the massive cost? It's been in development for as long as the entire Apollo infrastructure, and it's still between five and ten years away from carrying humans into space.

Yet NASA continues to lie to the public about this. They claim on facebook all the time that it is "The spacecraft that will take us to Mars some day."

mere semantics...this is the spacecraft that will take us to the spacecraft that will take us to Mars some day ::)

while I understand the "delay" is not being presented as a delay, the mere fact that they have given themselves an out is enough to conclude that this wont launch humans until 2023 (or until the next delay). Unless someone can point out another government run program that has been managed under constant delays which suddenly got its act together and came in "on time"? I cant think of one

Can this capsule land on Mars? No. The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars? No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed. Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.Is this capsule intended for lunar missions? No. President says so. NASA says so. Congress says so.Is this capsule intended for ISS? No. There are far cheaper spacecraft.Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous? It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing?? Why are we doing this??

Nice strawman arguments. Nobody ever claimed Orion would land on Mars. Most missions would require the use of a mission-specific module, which would also be true of any other spacecraft going somewhere in deep space.

The baseline mission plans I've seen assume a maximum reentry speed of 12.4 km/s, so I think it is safe to assert that the Orion can handle reentry speeds at least up to 12.4 km/s, and yes, there are Mars return trajectories with reentry speeds less than 12.4 km/s.

It is an internet myth that the Orion cannot handle Mars return speeds. I have never seen this claim be substantiated anywhere.

Sure, but Orion will never, ever be involved in any mission to Mars. You wouldn't want to mate it to a larger spacecraft and take it to Mars because it's overkill and much too heavy. You wouldn't want it to be the reentry portion of a Mars return craft because it's overkill and much too heavy. Orion was designed for relatively short, Apollo-style missions to the Moon and nothing else.

Orion was designed for cis-lunar operations. It would be great for going to a gateway station at EML-2 and with a small module as part of its SLS launch it could be used for lunar or asteroid missions.

Orion at least has this going for it. It's a fine transportation for to and from missions to things in lunar orbit or L2 stations. But no one in congress has any desire to fund such things, no Republicans or Democrats.

Can this capsule land on Mars? No. The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars? No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed. Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.Is this capsule intended for lunar missions? No. President says so. NASA says so. Congress says so.Is this capsule intended for ISS? No. There are far cheaper spacecraft.Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous? It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing?? Why are we doing this??

Nice strawman arguments. Nobody ever claimed Orion would land on Mars. Most missions would require the use of a mission-specific module, which would also be true of any other spacecraft going somewhere in deep space.

The baseline mission plans I've seen assume a maximum reentry speed of 12.4 km/s, so I think it is safe to assert that the Orion can handle reentry speeds at least up to 12.4 km/s, and yes, there are Mars return trajectories with reentry speeds less than 12.4 km/s.

It is an internet myth that the Orion cannot handle Mars return speeds. I have never seen this claim be substantiated anywhere.

Consider that actual reentry heating will depend on the accuracy of the return vector and the weather (among other things), I think depending on a heat shield rated for 12.4 km/s Mars return is unlikely. I also think it is unlikely Orion can be upgraded to handle a Mars mission, since the parachute system is incapable of handling much increased mass safely.

I'm going to plant my flag in the ground right here and declare that the "asteroid heist" mission is never going to happen (at least not as currently envisoned). Robots can do just fine in characterizing and (eventually) mining asteroids. We might need to get humans involved somewhere down the line in the ore-processing and material-fabrication steps, but that's years (maybe decades) away. And as an engineering exercise, the asteroid-heist scenario never made much sense.

If we're serious about cislunar operations (we're not, by the way) we'd be looking to build a station at the earth-moon L2 as a waystation for Mars, or to developing a cislunar ecosystem of fuel depots and solar power systems (to be used to deliver power to space-based assets, not to deliver to the ground). We'd be building robotic systems to complement human missions. We'd be looking at the moon as a test bed for colonization techniques that would, in due time, be used on Mars. (Or we'd ask ourselves what's so great about Mars anyway and dedicate ourselves to building large space-based habitats that wouldn't require us to trade one deep gravity-well for another one.)

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Apollo cost 150 billion in today's dollars. So, meh, seems about ballpark with historical precedent. The CSM was one of 3 major components for Apollo: Saturn V, CSM and the LM. If a modern replacement each cost 17 billion to develop, all three components would cost about 50 billion or one third of Apollo's total cost. Could some capitalist probably do it cheaper working out of their proverbial garage than a government program: yeah, probably.

The attached spreadsheet shows the money spent on various components of Apollo by fiscal year (from Apollo by the Numbers (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm)), with inflation to FY 2015 using the NASA New-Start Inflation Index. Spending through FY 1967 was $28 billion in FY 2015 terms. The first manned flight occurred about a third of the way into FY 1968 (the fiscal year started in July then), when NASA was spending on the CSM at a rate of about $4 billion per year. So, that makes the cost to first manned flight round about $30 billion. That figure definitely includes Apollo's service module, whereas Orion's service module is now being funded by ESA. Furthermore, technology has moved on since the 1960s, and it should be easier to develop Orion than Apollo.

All in all, I agree that Orion's price tag is not obviously out of line with Apollo's.

What it does seem out of line with is Starliner and Dragon. Granted, Orion can fly a much longer mission and has a larger delta-V, but that's largely due to the service module, most of the cost of which probably isn't included in the $17 billion quoted for Orion.

EDIT: If probably would make sense to add in the figures for spacecraft support. both spacecraft-support and command-and-service-modules numbers are reported only from FY 1963 onward. In 1962, there is a spacecraft-development number which should probably be included too. All of these together raise the NNSI-adjusted total to about $34 billion through the first manned flight. There are other numbers that might be added too, such as those for developing the Little Joe 2 booster used solely to test Apollo's launch-escape system.

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Apollo cost 150 billion in today's dollars. So, meh, seems about ballpark with historical precedent. The CSM was one of 3 major components for Apollo: Saturn V, CSM and the LM. If a modern replacement each cost 17 billion to develop, all three components would cost about 50 billion or one third of Apollo's total cost. Could some capitalist probably do it cheaper working out of their proverbial garage than a government program: yeah, probably.

The attached spreadsheet shows the money spent on various components of Apollo by fiscal year (from Apollo by the Numbers (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm)), with inflation to FY 2015 using the NASA New-Start Inflation Index. Spending through FY 1967 was $28 billion in FY 2015 terms. The first manned flight occurred about a third of the way into FY 1968 (the fiscal year started in July then), when NASA was spending on the CSM at a rate of about $4 billion per year. So, that makes the cost to first manned flight round about $30 billion. That figure definitely includes Apollo's service module, whereas Orion's service module is now being funded by ESA. Furthermore, technology has moved on since the 1960s, and it should be easier to develop Orion than Apollo.

All in all, I agree that Orion's price tag is not obviously out of line with Apollo's.

What it does seem out of line with is Starliner and Dragon. Granted, Orion can fly a much longer mission and has a larger delta-V, but that's largely due to the service module, most of the cost of which probably isn't included in the $17 billion quoted for Orion.

Starliner and Dragon are more like the Mercury program which only cost $2 billion(today's dollars) total which is pretty much inline with Dragon and Starliner. So, yeah, apparently LEO is a lot cheaper than Cis-lunar no matter the program/decade/administration. Cislunar is also a lot cheaper than interplanetary.

edit: the ESA service module cost is basically rounding error on that 17 billion.

Dragon, for example, with up to seven passengers, the capability of rendezvousing and docking with ISS and, we're told, a heat shield capable of withstanding re-entry from Mars is far more than the equivalent of a Mercury capsule. It's quite a bit more capable than Orion without a service module. I'm skeptical that the cost of Orion's service module could be small if it provides consumables for 84 person-days and over 1000 m/s of delta-V.

The original RFP for the CEV was in January 2005. That's nearly 11 years ago.

Yet the first crewed test flight is STILL another 8 years away? Seriously?

And with the better part of another decade to wait, does ANYONE seriously think we won't see further slippage?

When we wrapped-up DIRECT in 2011, our team collectively decided to step back and not publicly criticize things that we knew were still sub-optimal (mostly SLS issues such as 5-seg, all-new manufacturing at MAF, lack of parallel Shuttle continuation etc). But Orion was, at that time, looking like a reasonable plan.

NOT ANY LONGER.

The old king (Griffin's Constellation) clearly had no clothes at all. The current one is certainly charging for a really big wardrobe, but I'm seeing far too much skin to be at all comfortable, thank-you so very much.

Absolutely appalling show. Many heads need to be rolling for this fiasco, but I doubt anything will really change.

I have a question - where are all these costs coming from? How can this thing cost so much to develop, in particular the rocket itself? Is it the design itself, or are the companies involved trying to profit as much as possible?

I have a question - where are all these costs coming from? How can this thing cost so much to develop, in particular the rocket itself? Is it the design itself, or are the companies involved trying to profit as much as possible?

Easy: staff. NASA staff, Lockmart staff, subcontractor staff, ESA staff, etc. As I mentioned upthread, the costs for Orion and SLS only make sense when you think of it in terms of keeping paychecks flowing to the various management, design, and fab centers for the system. (And to NASA centers, obviously.) Ten years' worth of well-paid aerospace jobs in lots of different states with congressmen to run political cover. NASA botched the Constellation project (underfunded though it was) and required a lifeline after cancellation to keep body and soul together until "the next big thing" came long. That "next big thing" hasn't come along yet, and may not come along for a good while. So: Orion and SLS are there to keep the welders welding and the programmers programming to keep the industrial base alive and to keep NASA's hand in the rocket-building game.

NASA wants to avoid closing one or more field centers. The big defense contractors want to avoid further painful layoffs as industry consolidation continues in an era of tight federal budgets. Congressmen want to keep high-paying aerospace jobs in their districts. You can't ask for an engineering rationale to these incredible costs because there isn't one.

We did Apollo nearly fifty years ago with technology that is hilariously primitive compared to what we have now, so the "space is hard" argument (always rather specious) rings ever more hollow. Space is hard, but it was far harder back then and we still managed to do it, from development to flight, in timespans of less than a decade.

I have a question - where are all these costs coming from? How can this thing cost so much to develop, in particular the rocket itself? Is it the design itself, or are the companies involved trying to profit as much as possible?

Easy: staff. NASA staff, Lockmart staff, subcontractor staff, ESA staff, etc. As I mentioned upthread, the costs for Orion and SLS only make sense when you think of it in terms of keeping paychecks flowing to the various management, design, and fab centers for the system. (And to NASA centers, obviously.) Ten years' worth of well-paid aerospace jobs in lots of different states with congressmen to run political cover. NASA botched the Constellation project (underfunded though it was) and required a lifeline after cancellation to keep body and soul together until "the next big thing" came long. That "next big thing" hasn't come along yet, and may not come along for a good while. So: Orion and SLS are there to keep the welders welding and the programmers programming to keep the industrial base alive and to keep NASA's hand in the rocket-building game.

NASA wants to avoid closing one or more field centers. The big defense contractors want to avoid further painful layoffs as industry consolidation continues in an era of tight federal budgets. Congressmen want to keep high-paying aerospace jobs in their districts. You can't ask for an engineering rationale to these incredible costs because there isn't one.

We did Apollo nearly fifty years ago with technology that is hilariously primitive compared to what we have now, so the "space is hard" argument (always rather specious) rings ever more hollow. Space is hard, but it was far harder back then and we still managed to do it, from development to flight, in timespans of less than a decade.

That's what I had gathered.

In the future though, will it make sense to start over? Would that even be possible?

Are we stuck like this with NASA until someone comes along and sues them like SpaceX did for DOD launches? I guess that's outside the scope of this thread.

Can this capsule land on Mars? No. The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars? No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed. Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.Is this capsule intended for lunar missions? No. President says so. NASA says so. Congress says so.Is this capsule intended for ISS? No. There are far cheaper spacecraft.Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous? It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing?? Why are we doing this??

Nice strawman arguments. Nobody ever claimed Orion would land on Mars. Most missions would require the use of a mission-specific module, which would also be true of any other spacecraft going somewhere in deep space.

The baseline mission plans I've seen assume a maximum reentry speed of 12.4 km/s, so I think it is safe to assert that the Orion can handle reentry speeds at least up to 12.4 km/s, and yes, there are Mars return trajectories with reentry speeds less than 12.4 km/s.

It is an internet myth that the Orion cannot handle Mars return speeds. I have never seen this claim be substantiated anywhere.

Consider that actual reentry heating will depend on the accuracy of the return vector and the weather (among other things), I think depending on a heat shield rated for 12.4 km/s Mars return is unlikely. I also think it is unlikely Orion can be upgraded to handle a Mars mission, since the parachute system is incapable of handling much increased mass safely.

Yes, of course there are Mars-return trajectories with higher reentry speeds (these would also have faster Earth-Mars / Mars-Earth transit times as well), but these do not represent an absolute minimum speed limit. There are studies that consider return velocities between 11.5 km/s and 12.4 km/s.

Are we stuck like this with NASA until someone comes along and sues them like SpaceX did for DOD launches?

No, not the same thing. Spacex doesn't have case to sue NASA. NASA can operate its own vehicle (Orion) or it can procure crew transport services like Dragon or CST-100. The DOD case was where Spacex wasn't allowed to compete for a block of launches. NASA isn't preventing Spacex from doing anything.

I had felt that SLS/Orion was a dead program walking, but this article has really cemented that belief. I will be shocked if the first crewed launch takes place at all. I also do not believe there is a possibility of reforming the process. It will continue as long as Congress is allowed to task NASA to design and build rockets at public expense.

I must say, I just popped in to this thread via the main NSF page (didn't have it on notify) and see the recent comments. Ouch--how very disturbing and sad. Granted, for years I too have been stating "SLS will only fly 2-4 times, if it flies at all", but to see some of the most knowledgeable and trusted (to me anyway) voices speak so bluntly brings it home that much harder. Orion and SLS are tied at the hip, so one delayed means all delayed. At this point my biggest and best hope is that Europa Clipper flies on SLS Block-1 (iCPS) before the whole thing is shut down (or that funding for HSF gets a boost, and the funds are well used--yeah, right...)

Say NASA somehow got some nice stuff funded - small lunar base to learn how to do stuff with, a station at the L2 point, and year long stays for 4-6 astronauts at said lunar base. Would the SLS be bad at that point?

Would another system be cheaper per actual flight, not considering this disastrous development costs?

Is there a world where the SLS is as beloved by our children (grandchildren for some of us) as we love the Saturn V?

Say NASA somehow got some nice stuff funded - small lunar base to learn how to do stuff with, a station at the L2 point, and year long stays for 4-6 astronauts at said lunar base. Would the SLS be bad at that point?

Would another system be cheaper per actual flight, not considering this disastrous development costs?

Is there a world where the SLS is as beloved by our children (grandchildren for some of us) as we love the Saturn V?

So many questions, allow me to try to answer all by answering the last:

Booster:SLS would be beloved if ATK brought the "advanced boosters" online in a timely fashion, and at 1/3 to 1/2 the current cost of the 5-seg, and with better performance. As well, the Block 1B->Block II variant has re-useable main engine pod or the RS-25E comes online in a timely and affordable fashion.Orion:Orion is a 'tweener. Not capable enough of going the long haul (interplanetary, or even moderate/large asteroids where they live), and way too much for LEO. It makes sense if an EML2 way-point is established, and it makes the runs to and from (and to polar lunar orbit for a station at one or both lunar poles).

How much cheaper is the RS-25E expected to be than inflation adjusted cost for the RS-25D?

Truth be told, "they" are just calling it RS-25 now, and it is thought the "E" version will come along in an iterative manner. That is, the RS-25D will continue to be produced for SLS, with slight changes to reduce cost over time. Of course, that means a very expensive and capable set of engines being tossed in the Atlantic for years to come once/if the program gets off the ground...(and like I said, the cost of the engines may be one of the reasons we see only a few flights before the system is mothballed, if it flies at all. Once the existing booster segments and RS-25s are used up...ummm....and there is some question as to how many booster segments there are)

Oh, and I should have added to my response about being "beloved" to include a flight rate of two to three per year (not one per year).

The 2023 date, still only has a 70% Confidence Rating. And they won't even introduce the ECLSS until EM-2. So we're sending out 4 Astronauts, for a 3 week trip past the moon with a brand new ECLSS? No crewed LEO shakedown mission?

Some time ago there was discussion of having a, IIRC, 30-hour stay in parking orbit to shake down the ECLSS before heading off toward the moon (I've looked, but I can't find the article of Chris's where this was mentioned). That would mitigate the risk to a degree. Since the apogee of the parking orbit is about 900 nmi, though, it also means subjecting the crew to multiple passes into the lower regions of the inner van Allen Belt.

Even if Orion would fly tomorrow, it would still be useless right now. Same exact thing for SLS, there needs to be a program for space exploration that give NASA a clear goal. Even if it as been said a least a billion times before here I'll say it anyways, it's to the next president and congress to choose. Whatever the results of Orion or SLS, NASA is just as dependent as everyone else on them. 2023 is a long ways away and everything could happen between now and that date.

What I would personnally like is for Orion to never leave the confines of the earth and moon system. An earth rentry vehicule to Mars is as useful as a skis in the middle of the desert. Build a small station using some bigelow's A330 in cislunar space with SLS. After that build the ship thats going to Mars, whatever the propusion system. For the ground operations at Mars, launch the different cargo (habitat, food, rovers, etc.) on direct trajectories with SLS or with space tugs, doesn't matter right now because it as to go in unison with the goal choosen (think of Kennedy).

This plan can work but it still as to be choosen by the president and approved by congress, so for whoever wants something to happen, writing to the next one and to congress. Is it all making sense or I'm just saying bull**** without noticing?

Some time ago there was discussion of having a, IIRC, 30-hour stay in parking orbit to shakedown the ECLSS before heading off toward the moon (I've looked, but I can't find the article of Chris's where this was mentioned).

I remember reading about that idea too, and pretty sure it was here at NSF.

Quote

That would mitigate the risk to a degree. Since the apogee of the parking orbit is about 900 nmi, though, it also means subjecting the crew to multiple passes into the lower regions of the inner van Allen Belt.

We're 7 years away from finalizing the mission planning for that event, so I'd say the plan could change a whole lot of times between now and then. What's more important will be the decision about the SLS, which is supposed to be operational by that date - whether that program becomes operational is a bigger factor than how to test the Orion ECLSS, since that may change the carrier vehicle and timing for an Orion test.

Some time ago there was discussion of having a, IIRC, 30-hour stay in parking orbit to shakedown the ECLSS before heading off toward the moon (I've looked, but I can't find the article of Chris's where this was mentioned).

I remember reading about that idea too, and pretty sure it was here at NSF.

Some time ago there was discussion of having a, IIRC, 30-hour stay in parking orbit to shakedown the ECLSS before heading off toward the moon (I've looked, but I can't find the article of Chris's where this was mentioned). That would mitigate the risk to a degree. Since the apogee of the parking orbit is about 900 nmi, though, it also means subjecting the crew to multiple passes into the lower regions of the inner van Allen Belt.

Would it not better to cancel the SLS but repurpose this Orion capsule as the return-only vehicle for deep space missions? You don't send people up with it, you do that with LEO commercial vehicles...but you return them at high velocity with it.

By that I mean the Orion would be launched unmanned to be mated in orbit with other mission hardware, like landers, habitats, EDS, depots..which are all launched with currently available or soon to be available LVs. (Falcon Heavy, Atlas, Vulcan, Ariane V..)

So if people are not launched up on it, the escape system and its massive weight could be totally deleted. Crew could be sent up on commercial vehicles, expanding their role beyond the ISS but without requiring new expensive BEO versions of them. The high speed re-entry at the end of deep space missions would be done with the Orion capsule.

And of course the money freed from cancelling the SLS would be used to purchase cheaper LVs and help develop these new payloads.

It's been a few years since I've posted something like this, so may as well do it here, now.

As a taxpayer I fully endorse and support my govt spending billions of dollars on space exploration (robotic, human, human to Mars, etc). This is especially true considering the fraction of a percent even a robust HSF program comprises of the overall budget. Jobs program? I'd rather this jobs program than the "Let's train Syrian soldiers" jobs program, or the "Let's train Iraqi soldiers" jobs program, or the "Let's get boots on the ground in some primitive foreign land" program (each of which is far far more expensive). I'd better stop--creeping to OT, and I try to adhere to the rules.

It is sad that there is waste, and graft, and pork, but at least let it be in name and action of exploring our solar system and beyond...

It's been a few years since I've posted something like this, so may as well do it here, now.

As a taxpayer I fully endorse and support my govt spending billions of dollars on space exploration (robotic, human, human to Mars, etc). This is especially true considering the fraction of a percent even a robust HSF program comprises of the overall budget. Jobs program? I'd rather this jobs program than the "Let's train Syrian soldiers" jobs program, or the "Let's train Iraqi soldiers" jobs program, or the "Let's get boots on the ground in some primitive foreign land" program (each of which is far far more expensive). I'd better stop--creeping to OT, and I try to adhere to the rules.

It is sad that there is waste, and graft, and pork, but at least let it be in name and action of exploring our solar system and beyond...

Indeed. There's so much spent just on maintaining the jobs/facilities. It wouldn't even cost double that number to launch at least 2 of these Senate Launch Systems a year. I think we'll be lucky to get much farther than an Apollo 10 minus the lander.

And of course the money freed from cancelling the SLS would be used to purchase cheaper LVs and help develop these new payloads.

I think a more likely outcome would be the closure of Marshall, Stennis, and the Michoud facility. Without a big rocket, those centers don't really have a reason to exist. (They barely have a reason to exist as it is.)

It's a mistake to think that SLS money would automatically be diverted to other (perceived) "worthwhile" efforts. SLS/Orion money gets spent in certain Congressional House districts, and both Congresscritters and Senators will fight for the jobs that money brings. Politicians don't give a crap about space exploration; they're about high-paying jobs on the ground. The SLS was tailor-made as a jobs program, a consolation prize for the cancellation of Constellation to keep as many shuttle-era jobs in place as they could. Orion exists mainly as a purpose for the SLS, and vice-versa (much as the Shuttle and the ISS existed mainly for the benefit of each other, with no real larger purpose envisioned). Orion does for the industrial contractor (Lockmart) what SLS does for the NASA centers -- it keeps the workforce in place while NASA waits for better days and bigger budgets to come along.

NASA has from the very first had a split personality. There's the the science and research side, exemplified by the JPL/Ames/Goddard/Glenn nexus; and there's the engineering side, which centers around Johnson, Stennis, Marshall, and KSC. The engineering side has always been the dominant personality of NASA, but it's never been the most effective part of NASA (in fact, it's long been the most dysfunctional part). It's no accident that NASA's unmanned probes and science programs are far more successful than the manned programs; the science programs have a reason to exist. They have an end goal in mind. The big-ticket science missions have their problems, but they usually deliver big results. How many robotic missions could have been launched for what has been spent on Orion so far?

NASA's goal for the manned program is ostensibly the colonization of Mars by the 2030's (or whatever; the window always seems to be twenty years into the future of whatever the current time is). Yet nothing they're doing right now helps to achieve that goal -- there's precious little work or money going into propellant depots, space-based power, ISRU, orbital construction facilities, or anything. No, the most visible piece of the Mars program is Orion and SLS...and odds are that system will never be used in any Mars-based capacity, if indeed it is ever used at all.

I'm just a spaceflight fan, but human spaceflight is I think really interesting and inspiring for many people. The thought of going to Mars is really cool, but having to wait almost a decade just for a maned test flight around the moon causes me to loose a lot of interest to be honest.

SLS, despite the critisims, will be available with high probability in 2018. It could be used for a variety of missions, and the absence of another HLV, especially a funded one, really makes it appealing. Orion on the other hand just seems like the heavy, expensive, long delayed cousin of the commercial crew spacecraft.

If they could keep SLS, but use commercial crew for the taking humans up and down part maybe they could free up the Orion money for other hardware like BEO habitats, landers ect. Maybe keep the jobs and money flowing, just use it on other necessary hardware? Even Boeing might like this.

Anyways I know nothing will change until after the next president comes in, but if spacex can pull off the Falcons heavy (I know it is still like half an SLS) and a crewed Dragon test flight by the end of next year, I think there will be a lot of pressure on the Orion program.

I'm just a spaceflight fan, but human spaceflight is I think really interesting and inspiring for many people. The thought of going to Mars is really cool, but having to wait almost a decade just for a maned test flight around the moon causes me to loose a lot of interest to be honest.

SLS, despite the critisims, will be available with high probability in 2018. It could be used for a variety of missions, and the absence of another HLV, especially a funded one, really makes it appealing. Orion on the other hand just seems like the heavy, expensive, long delayed cousin of the commercial crew spacecraft.

If they could keep SLS, but use commercial crew for the taking humans up and down part maybe they could free up the Orion money for other hardware like BEO habitats, landers ect. Maybe keep the jobs and money flowing, just use it on other necessary hardware? Even Boeing might like this.

Anyways I know nothing will change until after the next president comes in, but if spacex can pull off the Falcons heavy (I know it is still like half an SLS) and a crewed Dragon test flight by the end of next year, I think there will be a lot of pressure on the Orion program.

Here's another article that says the speed can be as low as 12.5 km/s at any opportunity (see Figure 6).

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/14747

All recent mars mission proposals use Orion as a taxi to and from a cislunar gateway. The mars trip departs and returns to this gateway, leaving the Orion parked at gateway. This means Orion only needs to handle re entry speeds from moon.

Here's another article that says the speed can be as low as 12.5 km/s at any opportunity (see Figure 6).

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/14747

All recent mars mission proposals use Orion as a taxi to and from a cislunar gateway. The mars trip departs and returns to this gateway, leaving the Orion parked at gateway. This means Orion only needs to handle re entry speeds from moon.

Entry speeds aside parking Orion at L2 or DRLO saves 20+mt that the Mars bound spacecraft doesn't have to haul all the way to Mars and back. Staging in Cis-Lunar space makes sense even if Orion could survive entry at any speed. Its similar to why they chose LRO rather than direct decent for Apollo. Of course you have to come back to where Orion was parked but the ability to reuse the Mars spacecraft is pretty much enabled bu that scheme.

I don't get it...why not use a Dragon 2 or Boeing Starliner to drop the crew off to cis- Lunar Space ?...even if you have to modify Dragon or Starliner, it's got to be less expensive then building Orion ?

Seems like every PowerPoint to date had pictures of Orion at Mars...and now it's not going there ???...ok, for good reasons perhaps but then why do you need what is a beefed up taxi ??

Here's another article that says the speed can be as low as 12.5 km/s at any opportunity (see Figure 6).

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/14747

All recent mars mission proposals use Orion as a taxi to and from a cislunar gateway. The mars trip departs and returns to this gateway, leaving the Orion parked at gateway. This means Orion only needs to handle re entry speeds from moon.

I don't believe that NASA's own DRM (Design Reference Mission) follows that architecture -- and this is NASA's vehicle, and potential Mars mission, we're talking about.

I am pretty certain that NASA's DRM stages all the modules in LEO prior to TMI, and takes the Orion capsule all the way to Mars and back.

Mr. Lightfoot mentions an ISS resupply mission as an option for one Orion mission. That would be a crazy use of SLS/Orion. Please no! That's just silly use of SLS and Orion.

The Orion's docking ability should be tested before it goes to deep space.

Orion is not really a deep space vehicle, since it's life support is limited, and the crew space is very limited. At best it would be used for trips to the region of the Moon and back (which was the original CxP task for it).

Quote

Launch a LEO mission with a new 30-40 ton spacestation. The astronauts can then commission the spacestation and test docking procedures.

If all you need to do is test the docking system, it would be cheaper to dock with the ISS than to build a brand new type of space station. Still a big waste of money though, since docking issues are pretty rare. Or use the USA to send up a dummy mass with a docking adapter with the Orion so the Orion can practice on it - which would be far cheaper, and wouldn't cause such a big delay as waiting for a customer space station to be built would be.

Orion to a LEO spacestation, like the ISS, can probably be lifted by an Atlas V.Orion and a LEO test target by a Falcon Heavy.But Orion and a LEO spacestation needs an SLS.

Having got a new spacestation up there NASA can act as an anchor tenant and make use of it. The ISS is the micro-gravity spacestation so spaceship yard or prototype Lagrange point spacestation or LEO gateway spacestation are possibilities. The first Bigelow BA330 should be flying when the Orion is ready so later ones can be used as test equipment.

Quote

Quote

The extra mass allows the spacestation to have its own station keeping module and say a set of arms turning it into a flying spaceship yard.

Something for the private sector to do, not NASA. NASA shouldn't be expected to do everything, nor is it funded to do everything.

The private sector likes financial returns within 3-4 years. So it is unlikely to build an in-space ship yard to assemble the Mars Transfer Vehicles (MTV) until about 4 years before the prototype MTV starts its construction phase. That may triggered by the MTV's Critical Design Review (CDR). Prior to that the private sector will need a contract.

Here's another article that says the speed can be as low as 12.5 km/s at any opportunity (see Figure 6).

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/14747

All recent mars mission proposals use Orion as a taxi to and from a cislunar gateway. The mars trip departs and returns to this gateway, leaving the Orion parked at gateway. This means Orion only needs to handle re entry speeds from moon.

I don't believe that NASA's own DRM (Design Reference Mission) follows that architecture -- and this is NASA's vehicle, and potential Mars mission, we're talking about.

I am pretty certain that NASA's DRM stages all the modules in LEO prior to TMI, and takes the Orion capsule all the way to Mars and back.

The DRMs are not NASA's plan of record. There is no plan of record regarding an actual Mars mission. There are only more and less detailed looks at whether a particular mission plan could work, and if so, how much would it take.

My impression is the DRMs, while probably the most serious and detailed studies of missions, represent something like the direct ascent plans to reach the moon: really expensive and large. On the budget side, while closer and more realistic than some of the previous attempts, they still are pretty unlikely in the current budget climate. The lunar DRO missions and the minimal Mars design, on the other hand, seem like they might fit into a realistic budget. And from a technical viewpoint, the imagined Mars reentry problems go away.

The DRMs are not NASA's plan of record. There is no plan of record regarding an actual Mars mission. There are only more and less detailed looks at whether a particular mission plan could work, and if so, how much would it take.

My impression is the DRMs, while probably the most serious and detailed studies of missions, represent something like the direct ascent plans to reach the moon: really expensive and large. On the budget side, while closer and more realistic than some of the previous attempts, they still are pretty unlikely in the current budget climate. The lunar DRO missions and the minimal Mars design, on the other hand, seem like they might fit into a realistic budget. And from a technical viewpoint, the imagined Mars reentry problems go away.

Yes, they are. They are a common starting point and a "design reference". They can change and will until one is chosen and followed. "direct ascent plans to reach the moon" was the DRM of record until changed to the LOR DRM. There were some Direct ascent DRM requirements that were kept or not changed because of contracts, like the size of the SPS. There were others. The shuttle has some and they changed over the course of the program.

Wow $17B and over 18 years before the first crewed flight! That's really sad. Perhaps it's time to shut the Orion program down and move the money to Commercial Crew. The proposed asteroid mission will be a big expense with little reward. Congress will never adequately fund a mission to Mars for decades to come. Orion is a big expense without a legitimate mission(s). What has happened to NASA??!

Wow $17B and over 18 years before the first crewed flight! That's really sad. Perhaps it's time to shut the Orion program down and move the money to Commercial Crew. The proposed asteroid mission will be a big expense with little reward. Congress will never adequately fund a mission to Mars for decades to come. Orion is a big expense without a legitimate mission(s). What has happened to NASA??!

I have to agree that the progress on Orion so far has been disappointing. There are many reasons for that including contractor issues, management issues, technical issues, funding and other political issues.

LM is having a lot of trouble with its top projects recently (F-35) and they had never built a manned spacecraft before. If you look at how well Boeing is doing with CST-100 you can see the difference.

One of the big issues was that Orion was originally designed to be both a cis-lunar and a LEO spacecraft and was married to an underpowered rocket. They were trying to fit everything into one craft. After CxP was canceled Orion basically had to be reborn which resulted in delays.

It also has never had the funding spike that it needs to overcome more than one big issue at a time. This has resulted in delays and increasing cost. A flat budget is a big issue.

Edit: That is why getting full funding for CCP is so important. They need the funding spike to deal with all the issues they need to deal with before they can launch.

Then of course there is the political aspect given how the current administration feels about SLS/Orion.

It stinks and its disappointing that more progress hasn't been made. That said merely modifying the commercial crew vehicles isn't the walk in the park you might think it is. There is a big difference between a spacecraft designed for LEO and one that is designed for BEO. At this point we are better sticking with Orion than starting up a whole new program.

There is a big difference between a spacecraft designed for LEO and one that is designed for BEO.

It seems to me that a "capsule" for both LEO and BEO missions needs to do three things:1. Carry people safely to LEO, with possibility of abort.2. Survive a long voyage in a powered down state without gettings its systems fried by radiation.3. Safely bring people back to Earth.

Kinda like Soyuz and Dragon.

A key part of all three mission segments is that you want it as light in mass as possible. All the long term mission stuff for navigation and communication and life support can be in the real 'spaceship' or 'station', that hopefully can be reused. Once placed in space by an unmanned launch(es), it stays there.

I have to agree that the progress on Orion so far has been disappointing. There are many reasons for that including contractor issues, management issues, technical issues, funding and other political issues.{snip}One of the big issues was that Orion was originally designed to be both a cis-lunar and a LEO spacecraft and was married to an underpowered rocket.

You really need to go back to the genesis of the Constellation program to see the series of assumptions and decisions that were made that led us to this point, including the overall goal, which was a return to the Moon. That's where the costs we see today originated, not with contractor NASA is using today.

We will return to the Moon at some point, so it's not a question of if. But back then they should have discarded the Apollo-style of thinking in terms of "Point A is the goal, so what is the fastest way there", and instead focused on building out the technologies that would allow us to expand out into space in the most sustainable fashion. Because the real goal should be to expand humanity out into space, and we don't have a deadline for that.

Orion represents the maximum size for a capsule, and it may even border on being beyond the maximum size. Time will tell. So it's not an evolutionary path we can continue, meaning all this money we're pouring into it won't be specifically usable for the next generation vehicle we'll need to send an increasing number of people into space and beyond LEO.

So what should be next? Commercial crew for the Earth to LEO and back portion, but for beyond LEO it should be reusable space-only vehicles. But that's a separate topic...

Quote

LM is having a lot of trouble with its top projects recently (F-35) and they had never built a manned spacecraft before. If you look at how well Boeing is doing with CST-100 you can see the difference.

Lockheed Martin did not design the Orion, NASA did. Boeing would be having the same problems today if they were building it.

Quote

It also has never had the funding spike that it needs to overcome more than one big issue at a time. This has resulted in delays and increasing cost. A flat budget is a big issue.

Flat funding meets the needs of the politicians who are backing programs that benefit their political districts. And until we have an agreed upon goal for what we're doing in space, and all our politicians get behind it, this situation likely won't change.

Which is why I don't believe NASA will be doing much in space after the ISS is decommissioned...

Well, to get that 106mt figure that would assume they weren't carrying the full 9 ton propellant load envisaged for a BEO Orion, as during Constellation(?)

You are assuming that it actually has an SM.

It may have a ~4t sm if it needs to do burns before reentry (see the book-keep comment):-

"As the MTV approaches Earth upon completion of the 30-month round-trip mission, the crew performs a preundock health check of all entry-critical systems, transfers to the CEV, closes hatches, performs leak checks, and undocks from the MTV. The MTV is targeted for an Earth fly-by with subsequent disposal in heliocentric space. The CEV departs from the MTV 24 to 48 hours prior to Earth entry and conducts an on-board-targeted, ground-validated burn to target for the proper entry corridor; as entry approaches, the CEV CM maneuvers to the proper entry interface (EI) attitude for a direct-guided entry to the landing site. The CEV performs a nominal water landing, and the crew and vehicle are recovered. Earth entry speeds from a nominal Mars return trajectory may be as high as 12 km/s, as compared to 11 km/s for the lunar CEV. This difference will necessitate the development of a higher-density, lightweight TPS.

Two other factors (besides the primary concern of Earth entry speed) will drive the evolution of the CEV from a lunar vehicle to a Mars vehicle. The first is the need to re-certify the Orion for a 3-year on-orbit lifetime. Additionally, a science-driven mission to Mars would likely result in the desire to bring back an adequate amount of martian material (the current suggestion is 250 kg). Given the gear ratios involved in a round trip to Mars, the mass of such material would either have to be kept to a minimum or the upgrade would have to adopt an undetermined strategy by which to accommodate the mass and volume of this scientific material.

It was not within the scope of the DRA 5.0 activity to recommend specific design upgrades for the Orion vehicle or to develop an upgrade strategy. Instead, a mass estimate of 10 t was used for the vehicle CM to size propulsion stages. An additional 4 t was book-kept for a service module that may be needed to perform an Earth-targeting burn. Future activities, likely in conjunction with the Orion Project Office, will better define an upgrade strategy.

Depending on the trajectory flown, the entry speed of the Orion on a Mars return trajectory could be significantly higher than that for the lunar return at 11 km/s. Furthermore, since there would be a crew of six rather than four as would be the case for a lunar mission, the Mars block upgrade vehicle would be heavier than the lunar vehicle without incorporating other mass reduction efforts.

Figure 4-9 depicts the effect of g-constraints and vehicle mass on both peak heating rates and maximum heat load as a function of entry speed. The red dot at 11 km/s and mass of 9,227 kg corresponds to the Orion lunar vehicle with a heating rate of slightly less than 1,000 W/cm2 and a heat load slightly more than 1,000 MJ/m2. As can be seen in the figure, significant increases in heating rates and loads are introduced as the speed increases from 11 to 14 km/s while increasing maximum g’s at a given entry speed results in less severe augmentations. Note that limiting the entry speed to the DRA 5.0 recommended limit of 12 km/s can provide significant reduction in TPS technology requirements as compared to previous studies with entry speeds up to 14 km/s."

Orion was designed for the Moon. The so-called Mars effort I think is just a sop to the Obama administration, once the next administration comes in, chances are he or she will be convinced that the Moon is the logical next stop and, wonder of wonders, there's an Orion waiting to take us there.

Orion was also designed before Starliner and Dragon 2. They will both be flying crews before it is. The SLS itself could be a good cargo rocket. It makes most sense to go back to a CxP 1.5 architecture, with a commercial crew vehicle launched separately from a lander/DSH on SLS, and doing an orbital or lunar or EML rendevous. The SLS as a launcher can sill be justified, in other words, but I'm not so sure that Orion is not already hopelessly obsolete.

Orion was designed for the Moon. The so-called Mars effort I think is just a sop to the Obama administration, once the next administration comes in, chances are he or she will be convinced that the Moon is the logical next stop and, wonder of wonders, there's an Orion waiting to take us there.

Orion was also designed before Starliner and Dragon 2. They will both be flying crews before it is. The SLS itself could be a good cargo rocket. It makes most sense to go back to a CxP 1.5 architecture, with a commercial crew vehicle launched separately from a lander/DSH on SLS, and doing an orbital or lunar or EML rendevous. The SLS as a launcher can sill be justified, in other words, but I'm not so sure that Orion is not already hopelessly obsolete.

Only the Orion with SLS is capable of delivering crew to EML. The Orion SM gives it 1.34Km/s, both Dragon and Starliner have only a few 100m/s. TLI to EML1 is about 700m/s, EML1 to Earth is also about 700m/s. For either CC vehicle to do these missions they would need a few extra mts of propellant which neither's LAS can handle.

Orion was designed for the Moon. The so-called Mars effort I think is just a sop to the Obama administration, once the next administration comes in, chances are he or she will be convinced that the Moon is the logical next stop and, wonder of wonders, there's an Orion waiting to take us there.

Orion was also designed before Starliner and Dragon 2. They will both be flying crews before it is. The SLS itself could be a good cargo rocket. It makes most sense to go back to a CxP 1.5 architecture, with a commercial crew vehicle launched separately from a lander/DSH on SLS, and doing an orbital or lunar or EML rendevous. The SLS as a launcher can sill be justified, in other words, but I'm not so sure that Orion is not already hopelessly obsolete.

Only the Orion with SLS is capable of delivering crew to EML. The Orion SM gives it 1.34Km/s, both Dragon and Starliner have only a few 100m/s. TLI to EML1 is about 700m/s, EML1 to Earth is also about 700m/s. For either CC vehicle to do these missions they would need a few extra mts of propellant which neither's LAS can handle.

So, why can't Dragon or Starliner be provided a Service Module to provide the 1000m/s ??

But that only gets you four people for every launch, which is pretty expensive, and those costs won't have any opportunity to decrease much. That to me is not a formula for increasing humanities presence out into space.

Quote

The Orion SM gives it 1.34Km/s, both Dragon and Starliner have only a few 100m/s. TLI to EML1 is about 700m/s, EML1 to Earth is also about 700m/s.

ULA's distributed launch proposal could solve this too (ULA paper (http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Extended_Duration/Distributed-Launch-2015.pdf)), for any vehicle that needs a boost out of LEO. Which could include space-only vehicles and stations. We need to perfect this technique anyways in order to expand humanity out into space, so the sooner we do it the better.

Quote

For either CC vehicle to do these missions they would need a few extra mts of propellant which neither's LAS can handle.

At some point we need to develop space-only reusable vehicles that will transit between Earth and the region of the Moon. The decision to create that capability will happen when the number of people commuting between Earth and the region of the Moon incurs too great a cost when using the four person Orion+SLS. Let's hope that need comes sooner than later...

So, why can't Dragon or Starliner be provided a Service Module to provide the 1000m/s ??

A couple of reasons.

1. Starliner's heat shield can't take re-entry speeds from BLEO.

2. From what I understand (please correct me if I am wrong) the current design of the Dragon precludes this possibility. The "SM" of Dragon is directly integrated into the vehicle. The trunk is for cargo storage and solar panels. There are no connections for the extra life support you would need from the new SM. Also as Trevor pointed out it the mass of the new SM would far exceed the ability of the LAS to pull it away with Dragon. Remember both the trunk and the capsule would be pulled away in the current abort scenario.

As for Orion being "obsolete" by the time it launches we have to recall that Orion has undergone several evolutions in design. It isn't stuck in 2006. For example by the time it launches with humans the computers won't be 2006 level, rather 2015 level or so.

But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it. Dragon+SM today is designed for LEO missions. But the heat shield is clearly designed for bigger things. I am guessing that the reason the SM stays on today is for aerodynamic stability during the boost phase of a pad abort. A modified scheme could be worked out that could provide the aerodynamic stability without lugging all the extra mass of BLEO support along with it. No design is cast in stone forever.

But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it.

True enough but as you said that requires a redesign of the system which isn't trivial. My point is you can't just slap a new SM on it. It has to undergo a thorough redesign, so much so that you might as well be designing a new vehicle.

But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it.

True enough but as you said that requires a redesign of the system which isn't trivial. My point is you can't just slap a new SM on it. It has to undergo a thorough redesign, so much so that you might as well be designing a new vehicle.

Why couldn't the SM be below the truck and left behind on abort? A bit like the Apollo LM where the capsule had to flip around and dock.

It has to undergo a thorough redesign, so much so that you might as well be designing a new vehicle.

I really doubt that the pressure vessel, the hatches, the seating, the outer profile, the SuperDracos, etc, would need to be redesigned if a thrust-and-life-support-providing SM was added on behind the current hollow segment. Some control and plumbing connections would have to be added.

But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it.

True enough but as you said that requires a redesign of the system which isn't trivial. My point is you can't just slap a new SM on it. It has to undergo a thorough redesign, so much so that you might as well be designing a new vehicle.

Why couldn't the SM be below the truck and left behind on abort? A bit like the Apollo LM where the capsule had to flip around and dock.

The Dragon could be connected to the SM using the same the same flip around trick. The iLIDS docking ports have air, power, data and control connectors as standard. The SM may be part of the same launch or waiting in LEO.

The Dragon could be connected to the SM using the same flip around trick. The iLIDS docking ports have air, power, data and control connectors as standard. The SM may be part of the same launch or waiting in LEO.

That would definitely work without requiring direct modifications. That said there is still the radiation issues brought up by Gerst and lack of redundancy. IMHO Orion will remain the go to deep space crew vehicle until a "Dragon 3" comes out devoted to BLEO operations. What you suggested would definitely be the way to go for a "Dragon 3" since it would require the least amount of mods to Dragon 2.

So, why can't Dragon or Starliner be provided a Service Module to provide the 1000m/s ??

A couple of reasons.

1. Starliner's heat shield can't take re-entry speeds from BLEO.

2. From what I understand (please correct me if I am wrong) the current design of the Dragon precludes this possibility. The "SM" of Dragon is directly integrated into the vehicle. The trunk is for cargo storage and solar panels. There are no connections for the extra life support you would need from the new SM. Also as Trevor pointed out it the mass of the new SM would far exceed the ability of the LAS to pull it away with Dragon. Remember both the trunk and the capsule would be pulled away in the current abort scenario.

As for Orion being "obsolete" by the time it launches we have to recall that Orion has undergone several evolutions in design. It isn't stuck in 2006. For example by the time it launches with humans the computers won't be 2006 level, rather 2015 level or so.

Well that does limit you to Earth Orbit Rendevous missions. But that's not much of a limitation. The Constellation architecture went for the same concept. Using Dragon or starliner + SLS is not that different than what was envisioned for Constellation. Slightly less capacity, but much less cost.

The Dragon could be connected to the SM using the same the same flip around trick. The iLIDS docking ports have air, power, data and control connectors as standard. The SM may be part of the same launch or waiting in LEO.

Article on some site called TechnoBuffalo with the headline: "NASA says it will send astronauts to Mars by April 2023". It's apparently taken from the recent release regarding the first crewed Orion flight. Isn't modern journalism wonderful?

Article on some site called TechnoBuffalo with the headline: "NASA says it will send astronauts to Mars by April 2023". It's apparently taken from the recent release regarding the first crewed Orion flight. Isn't modern journalism wonderful?

That would mitigate the risk to a degree. Since the apogee of the parking orbit is about 900 nmi, though, it also means subjecting the crew to multiple passes into the lower regions of the inner van Allen Belt.

We're 7 years away from finalizing the mission planning for that event, so I'd say the plan could change a whole lot of times between now and then. What's more important will be the decision about the SLS, which is supposed to be operational by that date - whether that program becomes operational is a bigger factor than how to test the Orion ECLSS, since that may change the carrier vehicle and timing for an Orion test.

The 900-nmi apogee may not be easily changed, though, as I believe it's the highest-energy orbit into which the SLS core can inject Orion+ICPS. Lower the apogee, and the ICPS might not have the delta-V to put Orion on a translunar trajectory.

But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it.

Yes, it could. However, that wouldn't be a trivial exercise. With all the other modifications (including communications, thermal and ionising radiation shielding), you'd be effectively looking at Dragon v.2.5 or even v.3.0. Not impossible, certainly, but definitely complex, costly and, likely, time-consuming.

But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it.

Yes, it could. However, that wouldn't be a trivial exercise. With all the other modifications (including communications, thermal and ionising radiation shielding), you'd be effectively looking at Dragon v.2.5 or even v.3.0. Not impossible, certainly, but definitely complex, costly and, likely, time-consuming.

I think those modifications could be done before Orion carries its first astronaut. Did Apollo have radiation shielding?

The Dragon could be connected to the SM using the same flip around trick. The iLIDS docking ports have air, power, data and control connectors as standard. The SM may be part of the same launch or waiting in LEO.

That would definitely work without requiring direct modifications. That said there is still the radiation issues brought up by Gerst and lack of redundancy. IMHO Orion will remain the go to deep space crew vehicle until a "Dragon 3" comes out devoted to BLEO operations. What you suggested would definitely be the way to go for a "Dragon 3" since it would require the least amount of mods to Dragon 2.

How much radiation protection do we need?Does the 18 inch wall on the Bigelow BEAM give sufficient protection?

Instead of just docking to a docking port the pilot could fly the capsule into a 20 feet long docking bay.

The bay wall would need 2 or 3 masts to stop it wobbling and to extend it. Retraction of wall and space-end door are optional features.

I think those modifications could be done before Orion carries its first astronaut. Did Apollo have radiation shielding?

Remember that its gonna take a couple billion in NASA funding along with 7 years of development time just to go from Dragon 1 to Dragon 2. Impressive to be sure but not immediate. A Dragon 3 would take time and if NASA wasn't funding it then it would be a very long time.

Apollo's electronics were much much less sensitive to radiation than today's electronics. Having redundancy and or space hardened parts is a must have for BLEO spacecraft.

Instead of just docking to a docking port the pilot could fly the capsule into a 20 feet long docking bay.

Interesting thought although I don't know of anything like what you are describing coming out in the near future.

This is because no one has asked for it.

IMHO Cost developing the cover at twice the cost of the BEAM. Cost not price, these may have been some loss leading. The cost of modifying an upperstage, such as a Centaur, to act as an Earth departure stage will need adding; plus the cost of the launches and flight test.

Please excuse this question from a non-engineer, but what is the additional radiation shielding provided by the Orion spacecraft? Is is the greater mass, the tiles covering the conical section, or something else entirely? Thanks.

But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it.

Yes, it could. However, that wouldn't be a trivial exercise. With all the other modifications (including communications, thermal and ionising radiation shielding), you'd be effectively looking at Dragon v.2.5 or even v.3.0. Not impossible, certainly, but definitely complex, costly and, likely, time-consuming.

I think those modifications could be done before Orion carries its first astronaut. Did Apollo have radiation shielding?

No. The only shielding Apollo had was it's structure. No dedicated shielding needed when in deep-space for at most 10 days.

Heatshield made out of multiple pieces. We knew that but it's fun to look at it for the first time.

Yep... I attached an image from the link.

Heatshield tiles? Who would have thought? And so one of the main arguments for Avcoat (vs PICA) is chucked out the window.

Lets not forget that the decision to use AVCOAT over PICA was made long before something the size of Dragon used it as a heat shield. The fact is AVCOAT will work just as well and it is good that NASA is making improvements to lower the cost and manpower needed to make the heat shield.

So the welding together of the pressure vessel should be complete ... soon? At what point will it be ready for some sort of pressure test? I recall the ground test article was pressure tested in Colorado, and then the EFT-1 article was pressure tested (and suffered some damage) at KSC. Does EM-1 Orion get the former or latter treatment?

The fact is AVCOAT will work just as well and it is good that NASA is making improvements to lower the cost and manpower needed to make the heat shield.

NASA should have known about the cost differences well before they built the AVCOAT version. The contractor would have bid manual labor for filling the holes, which if you have watched the video was very laborious (and not very consistent). If cost was an issue they would have gone with the tiles to start.

NASA should have known about the cost differences well before they built the AVCOAT version. The contractor would have bid manual labor for filling the holes, which if you have watched the video was very laborious (and not very consistent). If cost was an issue they would have gone with the tiles to start.

By the "start" do you mean in 2006 when LM was awarded the Orion work? The timeline back then put a bit of pressure on them. Orion development was to be complete by the end of 2011, with crewed flight in 2014 (on Ares I, of course).

So the decision in 2006 to focus on the AVCOAT version may have been silly given a first test flight in 2014, but that wasn't the plan to start....

Heatshield made out of multiple pieces. We knew that but it's fun to look at it for the first time.

Yep... I attached an image from the link.

Heatshield tiles? Who would have thought? And so one of the main arguments for Avcoat (vs PICA) is chucked out the window.

Lets not forget that the decision to use AVCOAT over PICA was made long before something the size of Dragon used it as a heat shield.The fact is AVCOAT will work just as well and it is good that NASA is making improvements to lower the cost and manpower needed to make the heat shield.

Emphasis mine: Your statement is partially incorrect.The CEV was originally scheduled to fly with a PICA heatshield. NASA didn't switch to AVCOAT until April of 2009. The switch was primarily over mass considerations.

See here:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nasa39s-orion-heat-shield-decision-expected-this-323585/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/orion-tps.htmlhttp://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum39/HTML/000078.htmlhttp://archive.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/04/nasa-selects-apollo-era-heat-shield.shtml

SpaceX had chosen PICA for Dragon two months earlier (february 2009). See here:http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20090223005140/en/SpaceX-Manufactured-Heat-Shield-Material-Passes-High

Where do you get that? From one of the sources you yourself provide, the 2009 Florida Today article:

Quote

For more than three years, NASA's Orion Thermal Protection System Advanced Development Project considered eight different candidate materials, including the two final candidates, Avcoat and Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator, or PICA, both of which have proven successful in previous space missions.

Where do you get that? From one of the sources you yourself provide, the 2009 Florida Today article:

Quote

For more than three years, NASA's Orion Thermal Protection System Advanced Development Project considered eight different candidate materials, including the two final candidates, Avcoat and Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator, or PICA, both of which have proven successful in previous space missions.

Look at the first link (FlightGlobal), it gives a good summary of the developments of the CEV/Orion TPS between 2006 and 2009.The CEV proposal by LockMart featured segmented PICA. When LockMart was chosen as prime contractor the baseline for the TPS was set as PICA. Boeing received a contract to do the PICA-based TPS for the CEV, as a sub to LockMart. This all played out between 2006 and late 2008. Boeing even delivered to NASA a prototype of the segmented PICA in late 2007.Orion was, through-out most of CxP set to get to CDR with a PICA heatshield. However, the continued mass-trouble associated with the Ares-1/Orion combination led to AVCOAT eventually being selected as a replacement because of mass-savings. That happened in april 2009, when CxP was already very much in dire-straits and CEV/Orion already had a good three years of development under it's belt.When NASA chose the LockMart proposal voor the CEV, they inherently chose PICA as the TPS baseline. The switch to AVCOAT took place three years later.

Ah, thanks! That makes sense from Lockheed Martin's perspective. From NASA's perspective, though, wouldn't the decision have been "made" at the PDR milestone rather than at the contract award?

Here's a quote (with emphasis added) from a different flightglobal article:

Quote

Lockheed wants to use the Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator developed by NASA Ames and used for Lockheed's cometary-dust capturing Stardust capsule, which returned to Earth in January. McKenzie says: "We have baselined for the TPS the Stardust capsule material."

Ames researchers expect that whichever potential TPS option is selected at the Orion PDR, it will be ablative.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/orion-rises-208901/

The article also mentions some bit about how the heat shield would have to be ejected so the landing airbags could be deployed. My how times have changed!

Ah, thanks! That makes sense from Lockheed Martin's perspective. From NASA's perspective, though, wouldn't the decision have been "made" at the PDR milestone rather than at the contract award?

NASA chose the LockMart proposal for the CEV. Proposals are rather complete at such stages including initial material choices for all major parts of a design. However, that does not mean that the material originally proposed ends up being the material actually used. When going into development many of the initial choices will be researched thru risk-reduction studies. (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/pr530.pdf)This also applied to the CEV heatshield. The risk-reduction studies were done by NASA Ames. They studied a range of TPS candidate materials. But from day 1, the LockMart-chosen PICA and NASA-heritage Avcoat were placed in the roles of leading candidate and back-up. Why was Avcoat in the back-up role? Answer: flight experience on Apollo.What happened in late 2008 and early 2009 is that the two materials switched places. Avcoat became leading with PICA being the back-up. This was the result of not just the risk-reduction studies but also other contributing factors such as the earlier mentioned mass considerations.

On a different note:Although the above-linked NASA presentation suggests that SpaceX chose PICA for Dragon based on the work done by NASA, that is not entirely correct. The basic choice for PICA had already been made by SpaceX at that time. The results from the NASA study only served to re-confirm the the soundness of the initial choice of PICA for Dragon.

What about the airbags? Weren't they deleted to fit the payload capacity of the Ares I? Why couldn't they be replaced when the SLS became the LV?

The airbags were deleted in an early DAC of Orion. The DAC's had been all but completed by the time Orion was repurposed to fly on SLS.It is not exactly easy to fit things back into a design that has evolved considerably from the original design.

What about the airbags? Weren't they deleted to fit the payload capacity of the Ares I? Why couldn't they be replaced when the SLS became the LV?

The airbags were deleted in an early DAC of Orion. The DAC's had been all but completed by the time Orion was repurposed to fly on SLS.It is not exactly easy to fit things back into a design that has evolved considerably from the original design.

Land recovery was originally chosen because it reduced cost and risk. I would have thought the decision to abandon it would be reconsidered when the reason for the decision went away. Maybe I am just naive.

Land recovery was originally chosen because it reduced cost and risk. I would have thought the decision to abandon it would be reconsidered when the reason for the decision went away. Maybe I am just naive.

You are not. Its simply a fact of Orion moving too much along to change it now, while at the same time never having the funding to change the design a lot in the first place.

If ESA was not making the trunk, Orion would be in big funding trouble by now.

The NASA article states that a metallic coating will be bonded to the backshell tiles:

"For these future Orion missions, a silver, metallic-based thermal control coating will also be bonded to the crew module’s thermal protection system back shell tiles."

When they say "a coating", it makes me think that each tile will be individually silvered during the manufacturing process. But the renderings make it look like a silver film is applied in large sheets to the backshell. And actually the graphics make it look like more substantial metallic sheets are riveted to the backshell, not just a film or coating.

So does anyone know if this reflective coating will be "painted" on the tiles individually, applied as a film to the backshell, or installed as heavier panels secured mechanically to the backshell?

The NASA article states that a metallic coating will be bonded to the backshell tiles:

"For these future Orion missions, a silver, metallic-based thermal control coating will also be bonded to the crew module’s thermal protection system back shell tiles."

When they say "a coating", it makes me think that each tile will be individually silvered during the manufacturing process. But the renderings make it look like a silver film is applied in large sheets to the backshell. And actually the graphics make it look like more substantial metallic sheets are riveted to the backshell, not just a film or coating.

So does anyone know if this reflective coating will be "painted" on the tiles individually, applied as a film to the backshell, or installed as heavier panels secured mechanically to the backshell?

Thanks.

There is no mass budget for installing panels over the backshell TPS. Besides such panels would invalidate the primary function of the backshell TPS. The primary function of this coating is for thermal protection while in space, more specific to prevent over-heating when the backshell TPS is exposed to the sun for prolonged periods.Given that the backshell tiles are black I can see where this is coming from.This coating therefore must be lightweight, be able to provide thermal regulation and not interfere with the primary TPS role (and backup MMOD protection role) of the backshell TPS tiles.

Well, guess what: that's exactly what led to the Apollo CSM backshell being taped with strips of metallic-coated Kapton.So, my guess is that a (Kapton?) film will be applied over the backshell TPS, much like was done on the Apollo CSM. It will burn-off easily upon re-entry with the remains being easily removable in support of post-flight assessment of the condition of the TPS.

Good images of the CM with the new coating added. There was a video released by ESA showing an antenna extending from the ESM and Jim said it will be part of the Orion spacecraft. Yet there are images not showing the antenna. Could someone confirm this, please? It is confusing on which images and videos are accurate.

Good images of the CM with the new coating added. There was a video released by ESA showing an antenna extending from the ESM and Jim said it will be part of the Orion spacecraft. Yet there are images not showing the antenna. Could someone confirm this, please? It is confusing on which images and videos are accurate.

...Well, guess what: that's exactly what led to the Apollo CSM backshell being taped with strips of metallic-coated Kapton.So, my guess is that a (Kapton?) film will be applied over the backshell TPS, much like was done on the Apollo CSM. It will burn-off easily upon re-entry with the remains being easily removable in support of post-flight assessment of the condition of the TPS.

Actually, the metallic coating on the Apollo CSM didn't just all burn up on reentry. Remember, this is the back-shell, so the thermal environment is orders of magnitude less intense than the heatshield itself. I attached a picture of Apollo 8 after it came back from the Moon. Kapton film still clinging to the spacecraft.

Honestly, I think those black TPS tiles are WAAAAYYY overkill for the whole backshell when just some kapton film seems to survive at least to some degree. They would be better off with just a thin bit of ablative material or something over most of the backshell, IMHO. Heck, they could probably do alright with some white tiles or blankets over most of the backshell.

Guaranteed it wouldn't be cheaper. It never is. We're not saving money on the Orion service module being done by Europe, because there's huge overhead trying to communicate across continents and across language barriers, unit barriers, protocol barriers, cultural barriers. The only "advantage" is that it makes Orion much harder to cancel.

Well, the overall effort doesn't cost less, but the amount the U.S. has to pay overall is less because the Europeans are picking up the Service Module portion of the Orion (or at least a major part of it)....

Nope. It doesn't save the US money. Remember, we already half-had a design for the service module. We're still doing the overall engineering for Orion. We're also supplying ESA with many of the service module parts.

...I guarantee we aren't saving money with this. It's just to keep Orion from being canceled.

The US is indeed supplying ESA with parts for the ESM. But neither many, nor for free. Most parts of US origin (such as avionics components) are bought from US suppliers by the ESM main-contractor (Airbus). That includes the 8 auxilliary engines. Just about the only major component given to ESA 'for free' is the OMS engine.There is no sense in selling the OMS engine to ESA/Airbus given that they are surplus items from the STS program.

The actual reason for ESM still costing the US a lot of money is the additional testing and certification and integration efforts involved. In stead of relying on ESA to do ALL testing and certification and integration for them, NASA has decided to do a major portion of the testing, just about all of the certification, and most of the integration (with the crew module) activities themselves.

Simply designing, developing, basic testing and building the ESM is not really where all the money is spent. Particularly not given that many of the ESM systems and components are direct descendants from ATV systems and components. It explains why the ESA-cost for ESM is well below Euro 500 million. The really expensive activities involved with ESM are still being done by the US.

...Well, guess what: that's exactly what led to the Apollo CSM backshell being taped with strips of metallic-coated Kapton.So, my guess is that a (Kapton?) film will be applied over the backshell TPS, much like was done on the Apollo CSM. It will burn-off easily upon re-entry with the remains being easily removable in support of post-flight assessment of the condition of the TPS.

Actually, the metallic coating on the Apollo CSM didn't just all burn up on reentry. Remember, this is the back-shell, so the thermal environment is orders of magnitude less intense than the heatshield itself. I attached a picture of Apollo 8 after it came back from the Moon. Kapton film still clinging to the spacecraft.

Honestly, I think those black TPS tiles are WAAAAYYY overkill for the whole backshell when just some kapton film seems to survive at least to some degree. They would be better off with just a thin bit of ablative material or something over most of the backshell, IMHO. Heck, they could probably do alright with some white tiles or blankets over most of the backshell.

Bad example. Take a look at some of the images of Apollo lunar missions showing the 'wind' side of the backshell (image below of Apollo 11, 13, 14, 16, 17): most, if not all, of the Kapton gone (burned off) and degradation of the underlying TPS.Remember, the backshell still sees very high temperatures despite them being an order of magnitude less than the primary heatshield does.

Also, the black TPS tiles are a carry-over from a previous program and do the job just fine. Particularly given that the CSM was originally designed to be reusable and the fact that the backshell TPS holds a secondary role of MMOD protection. It might sound counter-intuitive but those TPS tiles-on-a-carrier-plate do a better job as MMOD protection than does the Apollo-style ablative material.

When the first astronauts travel to deep space in Orion, they’ll know their mission is solidly built on years of hard work by engineers on the ground. While manufacturing and assembly work continues on the Orion spacecraft for its first uncrewed mission atop the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket in 2018, currently known as Exploration Mission-1, a multi-NASA center team also has been busy developing displays and controls for flights with astronauts and testing advanced software to ensure human deep space missions on the journey to Mars are a success.

In early February, flight controllers and astronauts took part in a joint simulation to evaluate the prototype Orion crew display and control system, advanced caution and warning system for flight controllers and communication protocols. The test was conducted in the Rapid Prototyping Lab (RPL) at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, where engineers are creating and evaluating the display and control systems that Orion’s crew will use to navigate and operate the spacecraft.

“One of the main things this simulation was designed for was to figure out what the first contact between crew and mission controllers looks like,” said Jeff Fox, deputy of the RPL. “We wanted to see how the crew interface systems we’re developing work with the team on the ground.”

Orion will have a sophisticated display and control system as well as advanced software and operational concepts to aid the crew on long missions far from Earth, where astronauts will be required to work more independently than on missions in low-Earth orbit. On the space shuttle, there were nearly 2,000 switches and controls used to operate the orbiter. NASA’s new spaceship will have software to allow the crew to command the vehicle in most scenarios using just three display screens, saving mass and volume.

“We’re evaluating a totally new software model that allows us to automatically diagnose if a failure occurs during a mission and for messages to be displayed for flight controllers on the ground,” said Haifa Moses, a human factors engineer who is working on NASA’s Autonomous Systems and Operations project, which is funded by the agency’s Advanced Exploration Systems program.

The February simulation involved two astronauts and several flight controllers, including a flight director, capsule communicator or CAPCOM to communicate with the crew, and controllers who manage electrical power subsystems and environmental control and life support elements. Together they worked through a failure scenario in which part of Orion’s power system failed. This scenario required troubleshooting to get pumps and other systems back up and running to support the systems the crew needs to survive. Evaluating extreme failure scenarios is a routine part of training for mission in space.

“This is one of the first times we’ve integrated these two teams and had communications across headsets and have been able to practice making calls,” said Moses.

As the RPL continues to build and evaluate the displays for crew, it also is providing hand-on engineering experience for students in Texas. Mechanical engineering students at the University of Texas at Tyler have designed and built a mount to attach the cursor control device that serves as one way to operate Orion’s displays, also delivering their hardware to NASA in February.

“The students worked through the product development process, conducted several different analyses and design reviews, along with building prototypes the same way that we do at NASA, which gives the students real world experience in the engineering field,” said Fox.

Students from the university previously designed and built seatbacks and headrests for an Orion mockup housed at Johnson, which is used to train crew and evaluate hardware, along with additional support hardware.

As engineers continue to develop Orion’s display, controls and software for crewed flights, teams will conduct additional simulations. The RPL will also continue to look for potential ways to include student ingenuity in the lab.

Let me ask a simple question (and if it has been answered before, just point me up with a link of that discussion).

Since Orion is designed for long-duration flight, the use of fuel cells would be completely impractical, correct? You couldn't carry enough reactants for a 60 day flight. The Airbus-designed solar panels generate 11 MW, which, with modern electronic power needs, would give a substantial surplus to charge batteries and work for flights anywhere between here and Mars.

So, are thermal rolls such as those used for Apollo going to work? Or do the panels have the ability to rotate as the ISS solar panels do? Or, like the ISS or even the Shuttle Orbiter, are passive thermal rolls a real concern?

Can someone please characterize the nature of this hardware pictured near a trailer apparently blown onto its side by Hurricane Matthew? Surely not a test or flight article.... A mock-up? Size or fit test article?

NASA’s First Flight with Crew will Mark Important Step on Journey to Mars (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-first-flight-with-crew-will-mark-important-step-on-journey-to-mars)

It seems to me there's something wrong here:

"Basically, the spacecraft will circle our planet twice while periodically firing its engines to build up enough speed to push it toward the moon...."

"After launch, the spacecraft and upper stage of the rocket will first orbit Earth twice to ensure its systems are working normally."

"Following the first orbit, the rocket’s powerful exploration upper stage (EUS) and four RL-10 engines will perform an orbital raise, which will place Orion into a highly elliptical orbit around our planet. This is called the partial translunar injection. This second, larger orbit will take approximately 24 hours with Orion flying in an ellipse between 500 and 19,000 nautical miles above Earth."

I make the period of a 500 x 19,000-nmi. orbit to be about 10.8 hours. It has to be well under 24 hours, because GEO is at 20,000 nmi. So what's actually happening? I'm guessing that the sequence will be:

That gets there using impulsive burns. Can't it also be accomplished with a single burn of some non-zero duration? EFT-1 used a single burn to raise apogee and simultaneously lower perigee, which seems even more wacky.

Hadn't thought of what might be possible with an extended burn. But it's easier to see how you could lower perigee during an apogee-raising maneuver than raise it: even a zero-duration impulse will do: just make sure there's an outward component of velocity at MECO, and perigee will be lower than the MECO altitude.

I suppose it's possible. You just have to make sure that MECO occurs at 500 nmi. with a purely tangential velocity vector (or at a higher altitude with an outward velocity component). I imagine the burn would be rather inefficient, but for this mission the EUS should have plenty of delta-V, as long as the secondary payloads are light.

Thinking about this as a long duration burn leads to another point. With only a rather modest propellant reserve to cover the contingency, the mission could continue even if one of the RL10 engines on the EUS were to shut down unexpectedly, without risking loss of crew.

Although it's a vague thought for the moment, given that the ESM is "secure" for both EM-1 and EM-2 now and the later not due to fly for 7 years, what of the possibility of making an American-made SM? If the SLS can be upgraded the same philosophy should be applied to the Orion too, barring it getting totally replaced. The ESM is a decent start, but as is it won't provide enough "oomph" to get the Orion closer to the Moon or do much good in Mars orbit either. In the case of the Moon, this will be a hindrance in assisting lunar landing or constructing an new space station.

Although it's a vague thought for the moment, given that the ESM is "secure" for both EM-1 and EM-2 now and the later not due to fly for 7 years, what of the possibility of making an American-made SM? If the SLS can be upgraded the same philosophy should be applied to the Orion too, barring it getting totally replaced. The ESM is a decent start, but as is it won't provide enough "oomph" to get the Orion closer to the Moon or do much good in Mars orbit either. In the case of the Moon, this will be a hindrance in assisting lunar landing or constructing an new space station.

Better to spend the money on a propulsion and service module for a lunar lander.

In a lab at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, engineers simulated conditions that astronauts in space suits would experience when the Orion spacecraft is vibrating during launch atop the agency’s powerful Space Launch System rocket on its way to deep space destinations. A series of tests occurring this month at Johnson will help human factors engineers assess how well the crew can interact with the displays and controls they will use to monitor Orion’s systems and operate the spacecraft when necessary.

Test subjects wore modified advanced crew escape suits that are being developed for astronauts in Orion, and sat in the latest design of the seat atop the crew impact attenuation system. This was the first time this key hardware was brought together to evaluate how launch vibrations may impact the astronaut’s ability to view the displays and controls. While Orion’s late 2018 mission will be uncrewed, engineers are hard at work performing all the necessary evaluations to make sure the spacecraft is ready for crewed missions beginning as early as 2021.

Although it's a vague thought for the moment, given that the ESM is "secure" for both EM-1 and EM-2 now and the later not due to fly for 7 years, what of the possibility of making an American-made SM? If the SLS can be upgraded the same philosophy should be applied to the Orion too, barring it getting totally replaced. The ESM is a decent start, but as is it won't provide enough "oomph" to get the Orion closer to the Moon or do much good in Mars orbit either. In the case of the Moon, this will be a hindrance in assisting lunar landing or constructing an new space station.

Sorry for the late response.The increased "oomph" you hint at does not require a new, American-made, service module. What it requires is the originally planned Orion Main Engine. This OME, under the original 606-version of Orion, would be a more powerfull further development of the STS OMS engines. However, as with so many aspects of Orion this idea was overtaken by reality. More specifically: lack of funding. As a result NASA decided to accept that Orion would be fitted with a less powerfull main engine; refurbished STS OMS engines.So, it was a cost-saving measure and has nothing to do with the service module being American-made or not.

The increased "oomph" you hint at does not require a new, American-made, service module. What it requires is the originally planned Orion Main Engine. This OME, under the original 606-version of Orion, would be a more powerfull further development of the STS OMS engines. However, as with so many aspects of Orion this idea was overtaken by reality. More specifically: lack of funding. As a result NASA decided to accept that Orion would be fitted with a less powerfull main engine; refurbished STS OMS engines.So, it was a cost-saving measure and has nothing to do with the service module being American-made or not.

In short, with proper funding there could be room for improvement?

What were the specifications for the 606 version and how would it differ from the current ESM? If there is still a way to utilize hypergolic fuels and somehow produce better thrust and delta-v that'd be an alley worth investigating if anyone wants the Orion to become more useful.

The increased "oomph" you hint at does not require a new, American-made, service module. What it requires is the originally planned Orion Main Engine. This OME, under the original 606-version of Orion, would be a more powerfull further development of the STS OMS engines. However, as with so many aspects of Orion this idea was overtaken by reality. More specifically: lack of funding. As a result NASA decided to accept that Orion would be fitted with a less powerfull main engine; refurbished STS OMS engines.So, it was a cost-saving measure and has nothing to do with the service module being American-made or not.

In short, with proper funding there could be room for improvement?

What were the specifications for the 606 version and how would it differ from the current ESM? If there is still a way to utilize hypergolic fuels and somehow produce better thrust and delta-v that'd be an alley worth investigating if anyone wants the Orion to become more useful.

Propellant amount for the 606/607 versions of the original LockMart SM and the current ESM is almost identical. The secondary propulsion thrusters are identical. Both versions use the same hypergolic propellant combination for main propulsion and RCS. The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.

The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.

That's a pretty small difference in thrust. My preferred solution is actually a new capsule/orbital module with a mass of 5.9 t, about 3.2 m in diameter and carrying 4 crew. The volume per crew member would greatly increase, making the trip to the Moon and back much more comfortable. Keep the SM the same. Not having to lug that extra 4 t of the Orion capsule all the way to the Moon and back makes a pretty big difference (equivalent to 20 t extra mass in LEO).

The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.

My preferred solution is actually a new capsule/orbital module with a mass of 5.9 t, about 3.2 m in diameter and carrying 4 crew.

Where'd you come up with those numbers? Thats smaller than the Apollo CM, but still heavier

The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.

My preferred solution is actually a new capsule/orbital module with a mass of 5.9 t, about 3.2 m in diameter and carrying 4 crew.

Where'd you come up with those numbers? Thats smaller than the Apollo CM, but still heavier

The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.

IIRC the need for the extra SM thrust from the OME was a contingency scenario (abort) rather than the nominal mission. And it only applied to launches into the inclination of the ISS, which would take the flight path over the Down-range Abort Exclusion Zone.https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031124.pdf

IMHO? Requirements. As you add requirements a structure tends to gain mass. At one point Orion needed to carry thrust both from the aft (during launch) and from the fore (from propulsion provided by Altair). If a requirement is later lifted it is still difficult to undo the mass gain.

IMHO? Requirements. As you add requirements a structure tends to gain mass. At one point Orion needed to carry thrust both from the aft (during launch) and from the fore (from propulsion provided by Altair). If a requirement is later lifted it is still difficult to undo the mass gain.

Ok but thrust from the aft is unavoidable and (comparatively small) thrust from the fore is a likely scenario.

The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.

My preferred solution is actually a new capsule/orbital module with a mass of 5.9 t, about 3.2 m in diameter and carrying 4 crew.

Where'd you come up with those numbers? Thats smaller than the Apollo CM, but still heavier

The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.

My preferred solution is actually a new capsule/orbital module with a mass of 5.9 t, about 3.2 m in diameter and carrying 4 crew.

Where'd you come up with those numbers? Thats smaller than the Apollo CM, but still heavier

Will this do?http://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon

nope, not close

You're right, Jim. Better to let NASA spend a dozen years and a dozen billion making a new capsule/orbital module.

Better to let NASA spend a dozen years and a dozen billion making a new capsule/orbital module.

With the current experience it should not take 12 years and $12B. That would be more than what has been spent on Orion Block I. Development cost should be about $3B, with a production cost of $1.5B for ten spacecraft. I used the Spacecraft/Vehicle Level Cost Model based on the NASA/Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM) database.

I would base Orion II closely on Apollo Block 2. The more I look at it, it provided exactly the right amount of space for three, the tunnel location and navigation bay under the instrument panel was a great utilization of available space, and a modern version might be lighter with modern avionics and materials. If they want the forward facing windows, plenty of room for that since the instrument panel would be much smaller. In fact, one could base it on the CST-100 structure and save even more. Then you would be back to 2 versions, Orion Lite (Starliner) for LEO and Orion II for deep space.

I remember reading in the ESAS report that a small capsule + mission module would be heavier than a large capsule.

That same report said Ares I would be cheaper than EELV! There were so many thumbs on scale in there, the report is basically useless.

The Ares I with 4-segment RSRB and SSME upper stage compared favourably to Atlas Heavy with American-made RD-180 and new upper stage respectively Delta Heavy with new upper stage. It doesn't surprise me that a cost model would show them as more or less equally expensive to develop.

But cost projections are a tricky thing. When it comes to technical expertise I do not see why the report should not be trusted.

The relevant part:

Quote

5.3.2.5 CEV Split Versus Single Volume

A considerable amount of time was spent analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of a CEV split versus single volume. Separating the CEV volume into a CM used primarily for ascent and entry and a mission module that could be sized and outfitted for each particular mission has operational advantages depending on the mission to be supported. Also, separation of the mission module with the SM after the Earth deorbit burn provides the lightest and smallest reentry shape.

The difficulty in minimizing the ascent/entry volume of the vehicle became a driving factor because this volume must accommodate a maximum crew of six for the Mars return mission. Once the ascent/entry volume for six was determined, all other DRM crew sizes by definition will fit in this volume. A CEV sized for the six-crew DRM is the minimum size for the ascent/entry module.

The study found a single volume, which is less complex from a build-and-integrate standpoint, to be more mass-efficient and volume-efficient for a given mass. A larger single-volume vehicle also has lower entry heating and g’s as a result of a larger surface area, and thereby lower ballistic coefficient, than a smaller ascent/entry split volume. A mission module was determined to not be required for the ISS and the Mars return DRMs and was of limited value to the lunar DRM, if the single volume is large enough, and the CEV is not taken all the way to the lunar surface.

Of course that doesn't mean split would not be the better choice today.

The Boeing CEV proposal was lovely! I think the sole drawback was that it only supported a crew of four. NASA was adamant about the Mars mission requirement being a crew of six.... (And yes, they were equally determined to bring the Earth atmosphere re-entry vehicle all the way to Mars and back.)

The Boeing CEV proposal was lovely! I think the sole drawback was that it only supported a crew of four. NASA was adamant about the Mars mission requirement being a crew of six.... (And yes, they were equally determined to bring the Earth atmosphere re-entry vehicle all the way to Mars and back.)

So Oli, it's those darn requirements again!

;)

Mars return requires only 2 days of stand-alone free-flight capability. Kind of surprised the Boeing CEV couldn't bring back more than a crew of 4, it's the same size as CST-100. Looks like BEO capability takes up volume beyond mere supplies.

Published on Feb 6, 2017NASA astronaut Rick Mastracchio and the agency's Orion Assistant Manager for Integration, Annette Hasbrook spoke with SpaceFlight Insider about how the spacecraft, Mission Control, the crews who would fly in her - are all being designed to ensure crew survival - and mission success.

With all the talk of possibly putting people on EM-1, is there a summary here or elsewhere about the current state of the ECLSS? I confess to not having followed the Orion development stuff closely, but about all I know is that EM-1 was not going to have the regular/full ECLSS. For example, does it exist entirely on paper, or has a "breadboard" been built yet for preliminary testing? Is the system at a sufficiently advanced stage that building it is just a matter of money, or is there a lot of "how do we do that?" still to be worked out? And, how would it be tested--two weeks in a space environment chamber with a CO2 generator? Might make a good article (hint, beg, whatever). Thanks!

Question: Why is the Orion crew module so heavy? Compare Orion's figures (from the attached document) with those of Apollo's command module (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module)):

Characteristic

Unit

Apollo

Orion

Orion/Apollo

Mass

lbm

12,250

21,650

1.8

Pressurized Volume

ft3

366

691

1.9

Habitable Volume

ft3

218

316

1.5

Habitable/Pressurized Volume

--

0.60

0.46

0.77

Length

ft

11.4

10.9

0.96

Diameter

ft

12.8

16.6

1.3

Crew Size

--

3

4

1.3

You might look at the numbers and say that Orion's mass scales up from Apollo's in approximately the same ratio as the pressurized volume. At the level of basic physics, that makes some sense. But, considering the advances in materials and, especially avionics since the mid-1960s, shouldn't Orion be quite a bit lighter than it is? And why is the fraction of pressurized volume that's habitable in Orion smaller than in Apollo? I'd have thought that Orion's larger diameter would increase the efficiency volume utilization.

You might also argue that to some extent mass should scale with crew size (ECLSS, crew seats, etc.), but, again, Orion seems quite overweight by that metric, even before consideration of four decades' worth of technological advances.

Does Orion's CM take over some of the functionality that was provided by the SM on Apollo? Is there some other way in which its functionality is much greater than that of Apollo's CM?

That's a good point: other things being equal, it would tend to triple the mass of the pressure vessel and no doubt increase the mass of the ECLSS and some other systems too. That then begs the question of how much of Apollo's mass was accounted for by the pressure vessel.

Actually, pressure can't have much to do with it. The pressure being of the order of 100 kPa, the specific strength of aluminum being on the order of 100 kJ/kg and the volume being on the order of 10 m3, the mass of a spherical pressure vessel of the same volume is on the order of (100 kPa)(10 m3)/(100 kJ/kg), i.e., a number on the order of 10 kg. No doubt the actual pressure shell is quite a bit more massive than that, but the role of Orion's higher pressure can't be very large.

Per Wikipedia (loc. cit. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module)), the entire structural mass of Apollo's CM was just 3450 lbm, i.e., only 28% of the CM's total mass.

Now, that pressure-vessel mass of 10 kg seems awfully low to me, so I've done a reality check by looking at scuba tanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_cylinder). Apparently, a typical tank contains the equivalent of 2 m3 of sea-level-pressure air. I don't know what the tanks weigh, but they're obviously nearer 10 kg than 100 kg. And, of course, that includes things aside from the pressure vessel itself, which no doubt has a large safety margin built into it. So, 10 kg for a pure pressure vessel with five times the capacity does not seem outrageous.

I get about 120 kg for a sphere-capped conical balloon of high strength aluminum, of roughly Orion's dimensions and holding in 100 kPa... so not really that far off your first estimate. However, there are a lot of detailed parts that are not under pure tension, like hatches, valves, windows, etc. Those scale non-linearly with pressure because they are subjected to bending.

If I recall correctly, Apollo used 33 kPa pure O2 because of the extra ECLSS mass that would have been required for a nitroxy atmosphere.

With all the talk of possibly putting people on EM-1, is there a summary here or elsewhere about the current state of the ECLSS? I confess to not having followed the Orion development stuff closely, but about all I know is that EM-1 was not going to have the regular/full ECLSS. For example, does it exist entirely on paper, or has a "breadboard" been built yet for preliminary testing? Is the system at a sufficiently advanced stage that building it is just a matter of money, or is there a lot of "how do we do that?" still to be worked out? And, how would it be tested--two weeks in a space environment chamber with a CO2 generator? Might make a good article (hint, beg, whatever). Thanks!

State of the ECLSS.

Looking at the photographs in this thread and the update thread I can see plenty of progress on the layout and propulsion side of the Orion. What I do not see is a group of people (or animals) locked in a sealed room for 2 weeks to test the ECLSS.

Another difference from Apollo is that Orion was originally designed to touchdown ON LAND with only parachutes and airbags, no Soyuz-style rockets. This imposed brutal loads, especially when the airbags burst as they usually did in tests under the big crane at Langley. This alone required a much more rugged structure. Weight growth has required a reversion to water landing where the loads are much weaker, but there is no time or money to redesign the spacecraft.

As for new technology, Orion was specifically designed NOT to use new and untested technology. That's why the heat shield is a straight copy of Apollo's, made in the same factory, in the same room, with some of the same equipment.

Another difference from Apollo is that Orion was originally designed to touchdown ON LAND with only parachutes and airbags, no Soyuz-style rockets. This imposed brutal loads, especially when the airbags burst as they usually did in tests under the big crane at Langley. This alone required a much more rugged structure. Weight growth has required a reversion to water landing where the loads are much weaker, but there is no time or money to redesign the spacecraft.

Apollo was originally intended for touchdown on land too, though I'd be very surprised if its designers did not take full advantage of the reversion to splashdowns to trim weight.

Are you sure weight was not trimmed after touchdown on land was eliminated? Weight seemed to be such a big problem during the Ares I era that I'd have thought no opportunity to slim down would have been missed.

A major factor in Orion's relatively large mass may be the launch-abort acceleration it need tolerate. The attached spreadsheet indicates accelerations around 10.6 G for Orion versus 6.7 for Apollo. Drag would reduce those figures some, though probably not a lot for a pad abort.

This NSF article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/02/orion-las-to-be-less-harrowing-than-apollo/) on Orion's LAS describes an Orion abort as being "less harrowing" than an Apollo abort. Interestingly, however, the article mentions an acceleration of 6 G for Apollo but does not actually quote a figure for Orion. What it does suggest is that the jerk (rate of change in acceleration) may be less than for Apollo. And it makes sense that Orion would need a higher peak acceleration during abort given 1) the lower jerk, and 2) the inability to shutdown SLS's SRBs.

EDIT: "less than Apollo" -> "less than for Apollo" in penultimate sentence.

The capsule was 6.5t while the mission module was 5t. But the mission module looks big on the picture. A lot more combined volume than Orion.

Use of an OM would save a lot of mass.Though if I were to do a major redesign on a second generation Orion I'd go with the habitation module in back with access through a door in the heat shield like Gemini B or go with a biconic design or the original LEM lifting CEV proposal so the LAS doesn't need to be powerful enough to lift both the OM and DM.Plus the habitation module doesn't need to be designed to handle abort g forces and the reentry vehicle is left in the proper configuration for EDL without any extra separation events.

Before 1 man travels in the Orion $16 billion will have been spent on development. This is more than Musk is suggesting for development of the ITS. It is also $3 billion more than a fully loaded Nimitz class carrier.

This seems like a tragic waste of resources and why NASA should never be allowed develop another spacecraft. Any requirements should be written in broadest possible terms and fixed price contracts only. E.G. Requirement for delivery of 10 people to Mars surface with 80 tonnes of cargo by 2030.

Before 1 man travels in the Orion $16 billion will have been spent on development. This is more than Musk is suggesting for development of the ITS. It is also $3 billion more than a fully loaded Nimitz class carrier.

This seems like a tragic waste of resources and why NASA should never be allowed develop another spacecraft. Any requirements should be written in broadest possible terms and fixed price contracts only. E.G. Requirement for delivery of 10 people to Mars surface with 80 tonnes of cargo by 2030.

That way maybe we will get something done.

Fixed price contracts aren't the panacea people seem to think they are. Very few fixed-price contracts cover everything front to back or lock in any follow-on prices. This means any overruns in the initial contract will just get passed on to these follow-on contracts. Just look at SpaceX's CRS-1 contract. 12 flights for 1.6 billion dollars, while the 8 extension flights were 1.5 billion dollars. A 30% increase isn't inflation, it's shifted overruns.

Not that I am an expert by any means in this field, but I agree with Jim. Some large companies will not even bid a fixed price contract. Too much risk. Customer changes stuff. Fixed Price. Eat the cost.

Not that I am an expert by any means in this field, but I agree with Jim. Some large companies will not even bid a fixed price contract. Too much risk. Customer changes stuff. Fixed Price. Eat the cost.

On a fixed price contract you do not allow the customer to change the specifications. That is why government departments (unofficially) prefer cost plus. Extra stages that increase the price and either delay the deliver date or are a mark 2 may be a compromise that allows financial control.

Orion now needs to justify itself. What can the Orion do that the Dragon V2 and Starliner CST-100 cannot do?

Go into orbit around the Moon and return to Earth.

Does Orion have the fuel capacity to go into Lunar orbit and return? I thought it couldn't do that. In the original proposal for a lunar version, the lander (with LH/LOX engines), provided the LOI burn.

As currently designedand built, the Orion vehicle is around 25 t, with around 8 t ofusable propellant. This leaves a total ∆V budget of around1250 m/s with a total lifetime of 21 days for 4 crew members.Thus any orbit designed needs to cost less than 1250 m/s toenter and leave the orbit, or additional, currently unplanned,transportation elements will be required.[...]circular orbit (3,000to 5,000 km altitude), Elliptical orbit (100 x 10,000 kmaltitude) and frozen orbit (800 x 8,800 km altitude) respectively.All of these orbits are round trip accessible by Orionfor specific epochs. However, the performance margins aresmall and the total costs are irregular.[...]. For the L2 Halo, the cost variesdepending on the size of the halo and it’s location, but theoptimal cost can be as low as 637 m/s for a 31 day mission oraround 811 m/s for an 18 day mission. For the DRO thecost can also vary; for a 70,000 km DRO the ∆V cost can beas low as 840 m/s for a 26 day mission.

The Orion's guidance system, extra propellant and consumables gives it a valid reason to exist. The team now need to make a video showing Orion flying 4 people to a spacestation in lunar orbit. The spacestation despatching a Mars Transfer Vehicle and a lunar lander. At the end of the mission the Orion returns everyone safely to Earth.

Fixed price contracts aren't the panacea people seem to think they are. Very few fixed-price contracts cover everything front to back or lock in any follow-on prices. This means any overruns in the initial contract will just get passed on to these follow-on contracts. Just look at SpaceX's CRS-1 contract. 12 flights for 1.6 billion dollars, while the 8 extension flights were 1.5 billion dollars. A 30% increase isn't inflation, it's shifted overruns. [/quote]

SpaceX met Its commitment under the first fixed price contract CRS-1. NASA did not have to accept SPaceX next bid. SpaceX may not have had any overruns at all, it may just have increased its profit margins given it knew its rivals couldn't match the higher price. I would love to know dragon2 development costs versus Orion $16 billion. I know they are different craft but not different enough to warrant the vast difference in cost. In fact the SpaceX craft employs newer tech in many ways.

Nobody can seriously think that $16 bill was good value for money. We can tell NASA doesn't think so given the fact that it went out to tender for New orion or a replacement with similar capabilities a few months ago

The Orion's guidance system, extra propellant and consumables gives it a valid reason to exist. The team now need to make a video showing Orion flying 4 people to a spacestation in lunar orbit. The spacestation despatching a Mars Transfer Vehicle and a lunar lander. At the end of the mission the Orion returns everyone safely to Earth.

As currently designedand built, the Orion vehicle is around 25 t, with around 8 t ofusable propellant. This leaves a total ∆V budget of around1250 m/s with a total lifetime of 21 days for 4 crew members.Thus any orbit designed needs to cost less than 1250 m/s toenter and leave the orbit, or additional, currently unplanned,transportation elements will be required.[...]circular orbit (3,000to 5,000 km altitude), Elliptical orbit (100 x 10,000 kmaltitude) and frozen orbit (800 x 8,800 km altitude) respectively.All of these orbits are round trip accessible by Orionfor specific epochs. However, the performance margins aresmall and the total costs are irregular.[...]. For the L2 Halo, the cost variesdepending on the size of the halo and it’s location, but theoptimal cost can be as low as 637 m/s for a 31 day mission oraround 811 m/s for an 18 day mission. For the DRO thecost can also vary; for a 70,000 km DRO the ∆V cost can beas low as 840 m/s for a 26 day mission.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019648.pdf

Thank you. I had made the bad assumption that Lunar orbit meant low orbit, such as Apollo did.

Orion now needs to justify itself. What can the Orion do that the Dragon V2 and Starliner CST-100 cannot do?

BEO Dragon (I assume it will be a special version) cannot go in and out of L1/L2/LDRO (the likely destinations for NASA), it doesn't have enough fuel/efficient propulsion.

This is not obvious. The DragonFly test article had sufficient fuel to get 744 m/s from its Dracos, which is enough to get to some DRO orbits and back with a small payload. SpaceX hasn't made any claims for the capabilities of Dragon 2 in this regard, but Red Dragon will need over 800 m/s since that's required for Mars EDL.

Quote

From what we know BEO Dragon can support a crew of 2 for 7 days. Barely sufficient for getting to L1 and back but not for L2/LDRO.

Other considerations: MMOD and radiation protection for longer duration missions.

I bet though NASA could get those upgrades from SpaceX for the cost of 2 years of Orion development or less.

Again, this are all real concerns, but we don't really know what Dragon 2 can or cannot do. We do know Starliner won't be going BEO anytime soon, but the Dragon-Orion comparison is pretty vague - and that's likely intentional. SpaceX doesn't want to poke NASA any more than necessary.

Orion now needs to justify itself. What can the Orion do that the Dragon V2 and Starliner CST-100 cannot do?

Go into orbit around the Moon and return to Earth.

For Starliner CST-100 you are correct. It was never intended for beyond LEO operations. However Dragon v2 is intended for that. As for lunar orbit and earth return, that is not a function of the Dragon spacecraft, Steven. That is a reflection of the propulsion systems used to get them there.

I had made the bad assumption that Lunar orbit meant low orbit, such as Apollo did.

Exactly -- we all tend to use the Apollo architecture as a baseline in our thinking. But note that of the orbits listed in that paper the easiest to get into (and out of) in terms of LOI (and TEI) delta-v are hardly lunar orbits at all! The orbits around EML-1 and EML-2 for example don't go around the Moon.

Orion as it is designed and being built is totally capable of bringing a crew to a rendezvous point in those orbits and then waiting there as the crew goes off in a lander to spend time on the lunar surface.

Orion now needs to justify itself. What can the Orion do that the Dragon V2 and Starliner CST-100 cannot do?

Go into orbit around the Moon and return to Earth.

For Starliner CST-100 you are correct. It was never intended for beyond LEO operations. However Dragon v2 is intended for that. As for lunar orbit and earth return, that is not a function of the Dragon spacecraft, Steven. That is a reflection of the propulsion systems used to get them there.

Could the launch trajectory be changed for a crewed EM-1 to launch into the plane of the ISS? It would be still possible to get to the Moon (be it only one window a month), and it would allow the ISS to be used as a life-boat if a docking port was added to Orion for the flight (or maybe just EVA transfer :P).

Only real reason though would be orbital debris or MMO strikes to the heat shield in LEO.

Orion is a terrible waste of money and resourses. Boeing and SpaceX are going to be in space with their crewed product 5 years ahead of the first Orion flight. Really how long will it take for either to come up with a service module that surpasses Orion? The problem with Orion is it was designed by Congressional commitee. It is designed to deliver as much pork as possible to the Congressional leaders districts.

I am sure that SpaceX and even Boeing (If they want) will be on Mars before the Orion program can really start with flights. NASA is all about risk adversion and the horror about losing astronaughts. Life is well dangerous and driving our ground cars is taking our life in our own hands.

I think Orion should be canceled and NASA should support companies that will design and operate our next series of spacecraft. The orgional Apollo program had inspiration and not the crippling risk adversion of today. We are going to lose people and there is no getting around that fact.

Orion is a terrible waste of money and resourses. Boeing and SpaceX are going to be in space with their crewed product 5 years ahead of the first Orion flight.......

While I think everybody knows that Orion has many issues I think comparing something designed for BEO flight to a system (Starliner) designed for LEO taxi duty is unfair. Starliner's job is to get people from Earth to LEO. Its heat shield and ECLSS are insufficient for BEO flight. It is a perfectly good spacecraft for the job its being asked to do but it can't (without major, major mods and redesigns) go BEO manned.

As for Dragon, which has been designed with BEO capability, we still don't know the extent of its usefulness in the BEO regime. Its heatshield is BEO rated but in terms of propulsion and ECLSS Orion is superior AFAIK.

Quote

I am sure that SpaceX and even Boeing (If they want) will be on Mars before the Orion program can really start with flights.

If you mean "on Mars with humans" (in 6 years) I have some ocean front real estate in Oklahoma to sell you. :)Elon and SpaceX have been making lots of progress with their Mars plans but even the rosiest of schedules doesn't show manned landings in 6 years.

Quote

NASA is all about risk adversion and the horror about losing astronaughts. Life is well dangerous and driving our ground cars is taking our life in our own hands.

While I agree with you that groups like ASAP sometimes push for unrealistic safety standards I think going to the other extreme isn't helpful either. Remember, astronauts are real people with real lives and real families. Balance must be kept between maintaining the safety of astronauts and pushing the boundaries of spaceflight.

Quote

I think Orion should be canceled and NASA should support companies that will design and operate our next series of spacecraft.

Going straight from a Mars to Earth reentry is an old fashion NASA concept. Any returning craft need just to enter Earth orbit and at the right time reenter the Earths atmosphere. The Orion is over engineered and has too much mass. The Dragon 2 or Starliner will work better with the right service module. NASA loves to waste money and throw away the entire spacecraft. Boeing and SpaceX can develop new service modules long before the overprice, overengineered Orion will ever make a crewed flight. It is time to remove this pork from the picture.

Going straight from a Mars to Earth reentry is an old fashion NASA concept.

No, it's efficient.

Quote

Any returning craft need just to enter Earth orbit and at the right time reenter the Earths atmosphere.

Entering Earth orbit after returning from Mars would require lots of fuel. If you think Orion has too much mass now, it would require much, much more fuel mass to enter Earth orbit after returning from Mars. A direct reentry is more efficient.

Quote

The Orion is over engineered and has too much mass. The Dragon 2 or Starliner will work better with the right service module. NASA loves to waste money and throw away the entire spacecraft. Boeing and SpaceX can develop new service modules long before the overprice, overengineered Orion will ever make a crewed flight. It is time to remove this pork from the picture.

Neither Dragon nor Starliner are capable of doing much what Orion is designed to be able to do, regardless of the capabilities of their service modules.

NASA for the most part does the best it can with the money it gets, which really isn't much, all things considered. And NASA has to work within the constraints of the directions it receives from Congress, they can't just do whatever it wants to do.

Neither Dragon nor Starliner are capable of doing much what Orion is designed to be able to do, regardless of the capabilities of their service modules.

We need to keep in mind though that the Orion is just a transportation system. It doesn't have an airlock, and is not meant to be occupied for more than 21 total days during it's mission - and keeping more than 2 people in that small of space for 21 days would be very taxing for passengers. It is basic transportation for Earth-local trips.

NASA for the most part does the best it can with the money it gets, which really isn't much, all things considered.

Through 2015 the Orion program had consumed $11B, and it is projected to consume another $9B by the time it is able to become operational - for a total of $20B. And that is just the development cost, it does not include the cost of building each expendable CM+SM shipset.

As a comparison, the ISS program started in 1985 and thru 2015 it was estimated (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1) that NASA's part of it would end up being $72.4B in 2010 dollars. And the ISS is a reusable vehicle/space station.

The cost difference - the value that NASA & the U.S. Taxpayer gets from the money spent - is certainly part of the reason why the Orion is not universally loved...

Quote

And NASA has to work within the constraints of the directions it receives from Congress, they can't just do whatever it wants to do.

A more generous interpretation of the comment would be that aerocapture is used to enter Earth orbit. But that is also tricky and requires a spacecraft capable of handling the aerocapture.

And if you are going to do that, might as well just go all the way and land

Of course land as in how much of the spacecraft? NASA will throw almost all of theirs away. It reminds me of Apollo and their launch vehicile/ reentry vehicile reminds me too much of the shuttle. Modified center tank, soild boosters and tiles are a recipe for diaster.

I believe like Elon Musk that as much of the spacecraft needs to be reused as possible. It is my understanding that aerobraking will be used at first but in the future all things are possible.

My experience is mostly aviation but has a space element. My biggest complaint with NASA is that is is just another type of pork.

Going straight from a Mars to Earth reentry is an old fashion NASA concept. Any returning craft need just to enter Earth orbit and at the right time reenter the Earths atmosphere.

That is idiotic. The propellant required to enter earth orbit would necessitate a stage the same size that was used to leave earth orbit.

This is only true if pushing the same vehicle with the same payload into the same orbit for entry as for departure. But almost no proposed Mars architectures do this.

For example, a chemical Mars Orbital mission needs to send its return fuel through TMI, which already makes the departure stage FAR larger than the return stage. And chemical departure is typically proposed from LEO (vs SEP from HEO), while capture is typically into cislunar Earth orbit, which requires about 1/4 the delta-v compared to a LEO departure.

A chemical return craft could propulsively capture into high earth orbit for on the order of 1,000 m/s (depends somewhat on the type of return), for a cislunar Orion rendezvous and return. This will be more efficient than dragging Orion through TMI, Mars orbit injection, and TEI for any return craft that masses under 40 tonnes. This uses Orion to do what it is actually designed for: a cislunar taxi. It's not an interplanetary vehicle.

Entering Earth orbit after returning from Mars would require lots of fuel. If you think Orion has too much mass now, it would require much, much more fuel mass to enter Earth orbit after returning from Mars. A direct reentry is more efficient.

Orion is 20+ tonnes of dead mass in interplanetary space, it doesn't have the endurance for more than a trip to cislunar space and back. Replacing it with an equivalent mass of fuel and propulsion would allow a large in-space-only transfer hab to propulsively brake into HEO for rendezvous with an Orion taxi.

This is the current plan for using Orion, the DSG, and the DST. Orion isn't going to Mars, and it isn't doing direct entry from Mars.

For how long out of the year+ trip to Mars and back? For 90+% of the trip, a major issue with the transit vehicle will result in LOC even if Orion is there.

Hopefully you never need to use it at all. But if you need to use it just once, you will be damned glad its there. There are all sorts of scenarios where something can go wrong and not take out the vehicle and crew.

For how long out of the year+ trip to Mars and back? For 90+% of the trip, a major issue with the transit vehicle will result in LOC even if Orion is there.

Not true at all. If you are going to criticize the concept, first try to understand it.

That doesn't answer my question. How long is a crew going to be able live in Orion if the transit vehicle is uninhabitable?

If you are asking that question, then you don't understand it.

Surely an short explanation would have been simpler than 4 consecutive posts of "you're wrong" without any of them adding anything to the discussion...

It appears that the Mars Transit Vehicle will not have an Orion connected with it, the point of the DSG and Transit Vehicle in Cis-lunar orbit is to evaluate and characterize the requirements for a Mars mission with long-duration experiments - the LOM/LOC issues will be mitigated there.

It appears that the Mars Transit Vehicle will not have an Orion connected with it, the point of the DSG and Transit Vehicle in Cis-lunar orbit is to evaluate and characterize the requirements for a Mars mission with long-duration experiments - the LOM/LOC issues will be mitigated there.

Already noted above. And in the DSG/DST concept, Orion never leaves cislunar space, so the whole discussion of direct interplanetary entry vs propulsive capture to HEO is irrelevant.

In the older DSH+Orion concept, Orion was to do direct interplanetary entry on return from Mars.

Early Mars architectures, like Von Braun's visualized by Disney, envisioned multiple vehicles of like kind in self-support enroute at the same time.

Elon Musk talks about the same for their interplanetary transportation plans.

I think we need to shake off the limitations we are setting for ourselves with single-launch and single-ship transportation architectures. Apollo was built to satisfy a political goal, and it was not designed to be the best way to get to our Moon, so we shouldn't automatically think that the same model is the best architecture to standardize on. And if the U.S. Government is truly going to go to Mars, then we should go in a way that is sustainable and redundant - meaning multiple reusable spaceships.

And before NASA was locked into the SLS/Orion transportation architecture it was looking at reusable in-space only transportation systems, like Nautilus-X and the Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV).

If two or more Nautilus-X ships are traveling to Mars, and one of them experiences a problem, then an SEV can be used to move crew between ships - problem solved. With such a capability there would probably be some crew movement between ships anyways during the journey, so it would not be an unusual thing to do.

An Orion would not be well suited for such a task since it's not currently re-fuelable or reusable. It would only be an emergency vehicle, but even then if there is only one transport ship, the Orion is not going to be a permanent lifeboat due to it's limited capabilities, so another transport ship would be required for redundancy anyways.

This is an useful topic. Tempted to setup another thread "Comparative interplanetary HSF mission contingencies", but not sure about others enthusiasm/commitment for a serious discussion for such as this.

(Totally blown away by Jim's cryptic posts. Hard to reconcile them to the recent DSG/DST concept, best could figure was it matched the prior concepts that brought along Orion, as if we're supposed to read minds to learn hidden detail that the newer concept isn't real w/o Orion tagging along, even though propulsion requires it not to be.)

On this thread we should discuss the scope of Orion, its capabilities, and the details of mission contingencies it supports. In a quick scan of recent (last two years) could not find much to corroborate claims on this thread.

Early Mars architectures, like Von Braun's visualized by Disney, envisioned multiple vehicles of like kind in self-support enroute at the same time.

Elon Musk talks about the same for their interplanetary transportation plans.

I think we need to shake off the limitations we are setting for ourselves with single-launch and single-ship transportation architectures.

AIUI, Musk suggests the first few flights (the riskiest) would be single ship sorties, working gradually up to doubling the "fleet" every synod.

Quote

Apollo was built to satisfy a political goal, and it was not designed to be the best way to get to our Moon, so we shouldn't automatically think that the same model is the best architecture to standardize on.

For the scope of time/distance of cislunar missions, where you're a few days out, you could survive in a smaller craft long enough, like Apollo 13. For solar system missions, you'd need to either duplicate consumables, or be able to translate remainders from the "dead" vehicle, or have the ability to "repair/replace". It rapidly becomes infeasible.

(An odd thought. Perhaps Jim's comment makes more sense if one imagines Orion/DSG never gets used for Mars, but instead after being build and ISS gone, things are rescoped to just lunar exploration. A giant head fake.)

(By the way, I've proposed the ability to rescue Orion missions with a LON FH/Dragon, as well as a cost recovery means with lunar "free return" adventurers to use the unused capability post Orion mission - there's a way to retrieve astros not unlike what Jim was suggesting, in the case of Orion lunar missions in the near future. Perhaps the need for a second craft is peculiar only to govt HSF SC, and only in those cases?)

Quote

And if the U.S. Government is truly going to go to Mars, then we should go in a way that is sustainable and redundant - meaning multiple reusable spaceships.

Yes, this is most sensible. Von Braun said this back in the early 60's.

Perhaps its just a question of costs. DSG/DST, absent a "tag along" Orion, could just about get there/back with SEP and on credible, in the decade or so budget. Crossing into the territory of "possible".

Quote

And before NASA was locked into the SLS/Orion transportation architecture it was looking at reusable in-space only transportation systems, like Nautilus-X and the Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV).

If two or more Nautilus-X ships are traveling to Mars, and one of them experiences a problem, then an SEV can be used to move crew between ships - problem solved. With such a capability there would probably be some crew movement between ships anyways during the journey, so it would not be an unusual thing to do.

Yes, that's a rational contingency. In the worst case of losing a vehicle you double up crew and stretch overabundant (or raided consumables from the abandoned vehicle), and plan a low risk return.

Even with just two DSTs in tandem, one with a SEV, the other with excess consumables, you'd have a solid plan B that might fit the mass budget better than Orion would, as well as allowing more options/better contingency.

(I'll admit to being surprised when I heard the lack of a direct return to Earth via capsule being mooted years back, that's always been there for most rapid medical treatment. But if you have a medical emergency on a multiyear mission, those 2-3 days won't amount to much saved in not returning to DSG - conceivably you could even send medical talent/equipment to stabilize a patient to the DSG and evaluate them to be brought to condition to withstand reentry, thus having an advantage over direct return.)

Quote

An Orion would not be well suited for such a task since it's not currently re-fuelable or reusable. It would only be an emergency vehicle, but even then if there is only one transport ship, the Orion is not going to be a permanent lifeboat due to it's limited capabilities, so another transport ship would be required for redundancy anyways.

Yes.

It seems ill suited as a backup. You jump into the capsule, you're alive - fine. Now what do you do, even if you have the ability to diagnose the vehicle, such repairs or access to DSH consumables would require additional capabilities and training. How could you know that you had brought along / trained for the thing that went wrong?

Orion is too unspecialized for the tasks suggested in this thread. This really confused me.

I can understand the desire to give Orion more "meaning", so as to keep in mission plans.

But the only rational thing is doubling mission expenses by flying two DSTs at a time and having them self-support each other.

The larger picture I agree with you - we've got to think about contingencies and prepositioned assets that allow more recovery/redundancy. At a minimum, redundant consumables/vehicles/docking ports.

Surely this has been documented/studied. Where?

add:

I guess what bugs me about this the most, is the same thing that bugs me about hab space on the DSG concept.

The point of astros is to do "exploring" better than robots, not to have them hang around sitting in an gateway hab, or attempting to figure out how to survive with a broken transport hab.

We survived Apollo 13, that's good. But we shouldn't take the lesson as attempting to barely survive again, for that's nuts. The lesson is, like with Columbia, you have a live, comprehensive plan B on the pad or in flight, so that covers the need.

After that, it's like QuantumG and clongton suggests - you provide enough rational safety but then there's the inherent risk of spaceflight.

"ONLY ORION CAN DO DEEP SPACE"! Well, glad we got THAT sorted out. SpaceX must have been lying through their teeth when they claimed that their upstart Dragon will be able to handle BLEO return. Sure glad the Oldspace/Government Revolving Door contingent set us straight!

Wow, this thread really is almost nothing but snark and snide comments now. We get it- government spaceflight PR= always bad, waste of money. Commercial spaceflight PR= always good and accurate.

In partial defense of darkenfast, I work as an engineer for LM in the Orion test department and can say definitively that there is (as far as I can see) a company wide belief that Orion is going to Mars and that only Orion can do deep space. Which in my opinion is uninformed and borderline fantasy.

Personally I am a huge SpaceX fan and can also say that almost no one I work with knows much of anything about SpaceX's launch vehicles/spacecraft/history or any other aerospace history that might add some context and/or backing to their strongly held "beliefs". ;)

So to wrap up, it's fair to say that most/all LM employees that i work with don't have good things to say about SpaceX or new-space in general (while also being extremely uninformed to have such a bias). While on the flipside I can imagine that SpaceX employees/fans might also not have good things to say about LM or old-space.

So to wrap up, it's fair to say that most/all LM employees that i work with don't have good things to say about SpaceX or new-space in general (while also being extremely uninformed to have such a bias). While on the flipside I can image that SpaceX employees/fans might also not have good things to say about LM or old-space.

To put it lightly. Lately it seems like its gone full-cult on one side of this. Arguably they both exaggerate the capabilities of their spacecraft, though one gets a pass on that from the community.

So to wrap up, it's fair to say that most/all LM employees that i work with don't have good things to say about SpaceX or new-space in general (while also being extremely uninformed to have such a bias).

This extends to NASA mission PI's who work with LM SC/employees - they re-radiate the same bias. One told me about all the people that would die flying Dragon and BFS over the next decade, without any informed basis. Confronted him with the fact that there's been a Dragon flying for years w/no Orion, and just about the same amount of work going into Boeing/LM/SX ECLSS/avionics/flight test as objective measures ... and you couldn't shake that religious belief, articles of faith. Like a maroon. A PHd maroon no less. And his science has some gaping holes waiting to be fixed, but that's another matter for when sense is recovered. Plenty to do.

Quote

While on the flipside I can image that SpaceX employees/fans might also not have good things to say about LM or old-space.

Yes, they have an "allergy" to such. Easy to trigger, just use some common terms of art from systems engineering and a film forms over the eyes, and the walls go up. Sometimes takes an intervention to get things going again.

Yet you can get them to go at it with each other, and they have more in common than they'd like to admit. True of any who do this for a while, hard to shake it off.

Back to Orion - what is its true "utility" as currently scoped? Believable contingencies? Cislunar? Further?

With respect to SpaceGhost's question about Orion's utility, it's no as much about what Orion can do but unfortunately what Orion can't do.****

Orion can't get anywhere/do anything without a ride.*

Orion can't do long duration missions without other significant/expensive hardware. Most of which is not even on paper much less funded.**

Orion can't go very far deltaV wise without the exploration-class upper stage and possibly a different service module (Realistic timeline/funding?)***

*I am not going to bash SLS here....but really? The flight rate, the SSME production, the vertical weld tool mishap, the hydrogen dome drop, the flight software delays, etc.. It's 2017, remember the justification to use Shuttle derived hardware dating back to ESAS from 2005 and then also the very valid reasoning that team DIRECT proposed with respect to Shuttle derived. The clock is still ticking and 2020 is still not looking good.

**Yes, there have been some new developments with respect to the required hab-module. But how long are missions projected to last with the re-purposed ISS module as the new in-the-works hab-module? The Orion program has touted BEO from the very beginning but how much "B" are we really talking about with the ISS module? Hab-module aside there is no lander of any sort for lunar or other "exploration". With Apollo as an historic example the lander is a serious/monumental funding/engineering challenge. Mars anyone?

***Yes, there have been some new developments with respect to the exploration upper stage coming online sooner than expected (EM2-ish). But, if that's the case have all of the long-poles in that tent been fully charted with expected budgets and technical slides to the right? EM2 really? Even then what are we going to do/where are we going to go with just an Orion and it's current service module with all of the delta V of the exploration class upper stage and no lander?

****It's somewhat ironic that 13 years post Columbia we are still in a "no, because" mode, rather than a "yes, if" mode.

All of these points have been stated over and over and over. How many different ways can the same things be said? This is getting old.

My apologies, i completely agree with you it is all old and stale.So stale in fact, people in-the-know have been saying we'll "be on Mars in 20 years" since the 1960s.So add 20 years to 2017 and that's about where we are right now (at least with NASA).

Yes, I know it's stale but here we are in the summer of 2017 having a "discussion" in the Orion Discussion Thread 2

{snip}(By the way, I've proposed the ability to rescue Orion missions with a LON FH/Dragon, as well as a cost recovery means with lunar "free return" adventurers to use the unused capability post Orion mission - there's a way to retrieve astros not unlike what Jim was suggesting, in the case of Orion lunar missions in the near future. Perhaps the need for a second craft is peculiar only to govt HSF SC, and only in those cases?)....

That is the equivalent of sending a car to rescue people from a damaged camper van. Both vehicles can cover the miles but only the camper van lets you stay for a month.

Any spacecraft that is designed to return to the surface of the earth will have limitations on its size. The fact that Orion will need a habitation module for long duration stays is not some mistake by NASA.

Perhaps many of you have ITS etched into your brains, which hasn't been proven, any long duration mission would require a habitation module, be it Orion or any other spacecraft.

Orion is perfectly suited and robust for the cis-lunar missions and DSG construction.

Yeah one would probably be better off discussing that in more detail here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35787.100

Probably wouldn't be quick and easy. Starliner is limited to 60 hour free flight, Dragon at least lacks the dV, and is a tight ride. Would need to see how/if that shakes out. As the rumor goes it seems like trading one hole in capability for another.

Although if the lander could act as a service module and transit hab that would make a Dragon at least much more feasible, and possibly being a lighter vehicle fit within SLS mass contraints.

Any spacecraft that is designed to return to the surface of the earth will have limitations on its size.

Sure, but that limitation is based on the mode used to return to the surface of Earth.

For instance, the Shuttle Orbiter empty weight was about 65mT, yet even though the Orion only weighs 8.5mT it is recognized that it's capsule design has reached the upper mass limit to safely return to Earth. The difference? The Shuttle used wings to land on Earth whereas the Orion depends on parachutes.

What Elon Musk is planning for the ITS is propulsive landings, which we've seen is possible with sub-orbital vehicles, and SpaceX feels is possible with far larger vehicles coming to Earth beyond LEO. And I think it's too early to know for sure what the upper end is for size until such a vehicle is actually successfully tested.

Quote

The fact that Orion will need a habitation module for long duration stays is not some mistake by NASA.

Certainly not a mistake by NASA, since "NASA" did not really design the Orion in the first place. It was a design mandated by Michael Griffin which he called "Apollo on steroids", and it was not a very well thought out design.

NASA acknowledging that the only way to make the Orion truly usable is to add a habitation module is not surprising.

Quote

Perhaps many of you have ITS etched into your brains, which hasn't been proven, any long duration mission would require a habitation module, be it Orion or any other spacecraft.

No, I'd say you are assuming that everything we do in space has to use the single-launch Apollo model - or at least the "go it alone" model.

The 450mT ISS has shown that we can build and operate "large" vehicles in space that have a constant stream of supply & service vehicles visiting. Plus, as we expand out into space we should not assume that we'll only do it in independent sorties. Which means that the future of space is many vehicles going on expeditions, and many vehicles visiting in-space destinations. Meaning the future of human activity in space is not to be constrained to small "habitation" modules, but to live in space stations and travel in significantly-sized spaceships.

Oh, and notice I'm only referencing stuff that NASA has been doing - I wish SpaceX good luck with the ITS, but NASA is not stuck with only one option for it's future in space.

Quote

Orion is perfectly suited and robust for the cis-lunar missions and DSG construction.

What we also learned with the ISS is that reusable vehicles in space do work, and we don't need to throw away perfectly good hardware after one use. Unfortunately the Orion MPCV is 100% disposable, which means in no way is it "perfect" for doing anything in space, nor is it "robust" since it can't stay in space very long - the ISS has been continuously occupied in space for over 16 years, but the Orion is limited to 21 days of occupancy with 4 (very cramped) crew.

The Orion is a transportation element. If the mission/program needs fits within it's capabilities then the Orion can do the job, and I'm sure do it safely. But it has pretty limited capabilities compared to other alternatives...

What we also learned with the ISS is that reusable vehicles in space do work, and we don't need to throw away perfectly good hardware after one use. Unfortunately the Orion MPCV is 100% disposable, which means in no way is it "perfect" for doing anything in space, nor is it "robust" since it can't stay in space very long - the ISS has been continuously occupied in space for over 16 years, but the Orion is limited to 21 days of occupancy with 4 (very cramped) crew.

The Orion is a transportation element. If the mission/program needs fits within it's capabilities then the Orion can do the job, and I'm sure do it safely. But it has pretty limited capabilities compared to other alternatives...

ISS has been continuously occupied for 16 years because it is continuously re-supplied with fuel, food, supplies and spare parts. It also receives boosts from other spacecraft to increase orbital altitude and would not be occupied without this.

Orion can stay active for at least 21 days, but can stay in quiescence for 6 months or more completely on its own. This is a very different problem of not just existing in space for long periods of time, but being completely self sufficient and outside of earths aid. This has never been proven by anyone, period. No matter what else may be in a pdf or paper. Orion is set to test this, along with other modules, in cis-lunar space. For this, it is well suited.

Larry Price, Lockheed Martin's Orion deputy program manager, explained that Orion's design locates the majority of these electronics not only in the crew module, but within the pressurized section of the crew module in which the astronauts ride. This chamber is able to withstand the vacuum of space, and will also serve to keep out salty ocean water upon returning to Earth.

Dragon was borderline on delta v for a LDRO or NRHO mission before. Now that propulsive landing is off the table (which should itself add 200+ m/s budget to work with, plus whatever mass reductions are possible from eliminating the legs and ballast sled), it should quite easily be able to visit either of those plus maybe a couple other types of cislunar orbits. It can't go to LLO, but neither can Orion (even with no comanifested payload), so thats not a point against Dragon. And Dragon 2 has like 50% more internal volume than Apollo did (and modern tech means less of that volume is needed for equipment), given that Apollo could support 3 astronauts for ~11 days (Apollo 7) without an LM or anything, Dragon should be able to do the same at minimum.

Larry Price, Lockheed Martin's Orion deputy program manager, explained that Orion's design locates the majority of these electronics not only in the crew module, but within the pressurized section of the crew module in which the astronauts ride. This chamber is able to withstand the vacuum of space, and will also serve to keep out salty ocean water upon returning to Earth.

https://www.space.com/21541-nasa-orion-spacecraft-reusable.html

I guess we will see how well their efforts turn out.

As far as I'm aware, Orion's CM is disposable only because of the low flightrate making it not worth it, not any hardware constraints. Most of the CM hardware was specified to be reusable, and that was NASAs public claim up until Orion planning went from 1 launch every couple months to 1 launch every couple years

Certainly not a mistake by NASA, since "NASA" did not really design the Orion in the first place. It was a design mandated by Michael Griffin which he called "Apollo on steroids", and it was not a very well thought out design.

NASA acknowledging that the only way to make the Orion truly usable is to add a habitation module is not surprising.

And Dragon 2 has like 50% more internal volume than Apollo did (and modern tech means less of that volume is needed for equipment).

Wikipedia lists Dragon 2 pressurized volume at 10 cubic meters while the Apollo CSM is listed at 10.4 cubic meters pressurized. There really is no good technical information on Dragon 2 though simply because SpaceX doesn't publish much. Information on dV is calculated from old dragon rider information and mass information. Dragon rider may have been a stripped down variant with different mass numbers and so derived dV numbers aren't reliable. Not to mention a BEO variant would likely add non-propellant mass on top of that. The only mission that we know the Dragon v2 can do is a lunar flyby.

The propulsion system of Dragon v2 wouldn't be very good at efficient insertion into NRHO because the efficient trajectories include powered lunar flybys. The draco thruster has 2 orders of magnitude less thrust than then the OMS engine on Orion and the super-draco thrusters have poor vacuum isp and off axial thrust.

All of this can be fixed by beefing up the trunk into a service module for dragon v2. But it is no where near ready to go as it was designed for LEO crew transportation.

The Wikipedia page I'm looking at for the Apollo Command/Service Module (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module) lists the internal volume as 6.2 cubic meters. For Orion Wikipedia lists the habitable pressurized volumes as 8.95 cubic meters. If we were only looking at habitable volume it would appear that Dragon Crew has the larger internal area of the three vehicles.

However all of these capsules are really just meant for basic transportation. In fact I would argue that for any capsule the farther is gets from Earth orbit the less efficient the design becomes, because their core competency is returning safely to Earth through Earth's atmosphere - every other function they may be pressed into doing in space can be done far better by space-only elements.

Quote

The propulsion system of Dragon v2 wouldn't be very good at efficient insertion into NRHO because the efficient trajectories include powered lunar flybys. The draco thruster has 2 orders of magnitude less thrust than then the OMS engine on Orion and the super-draco thrusters have poor vacuum isp and off axial thrust.

All of this can be fixed by beefing up the trunk into a service module for dragon v2. But it is no where near ready to go as it was designed for LEO crew transportation.

Except for the lunar fly-by, I think SpaceX is assuming it will be leaving LEO in some version of an ITS, not a Dragon, so I think we can ignore Dragon what-if's.

Big picture though, if we are only thinking about having four people in space at a time, then sure, Orion can be a capable vehicle for cislunar operations. Not the most comfortable ride, but those going would put up with such discomforts for the chance to do what few have done in space.

But I would hope we are setting our sights at having more than four people in space at any one time, which is one of my touchstones for critiques of any HSF hardware. Does it allow & promote the expansion of humanity out into space? With expansion in this case not meaning distance, but the number of people.

And because adding people to space means money, we either have to get a bigger pot of money (not likely to happen for NASA), or we have to somehow reduce the cost for doing anything in space. And it is from the perspective of cost that I have the most objection to the SLS & Orion, because I see them as slowing down our expansion out into space, not accelerating it.

Coastal is right about capsules(/reentry vehicles) not being ideal for BLEO travel. A OTV with attached habitat module would be better and far more flexible. But require fuel depots and in orbit refuelling, as BLEO -LEO DV is same as LEO-BLEO.

Coastal is right about capsules(/reentry vehicles) not being ideal for BLEO travel. A OTV with attached habitat module would be better and far more flexible. But require fuel depots and in orbit refuelling, as BLEO -LEO DV is same as LEO-BLEO.

Disagree. It only takes 3 days to reach lunar orbit or back. That compares to a couple days to launch or return from ISS, and up to 2 weeks for Shuttle missions. Cislunar transport doesn't need extra space than is needed for typical LEO capsule missions.

A separate cislunar transport craft (in addition to a capsule and a lander) doesn't make sense to me. Just another development project to amortize and another docking event.

Big picture though, if we are only thinking about having four people in space at a time, then sure, Orion can be a capable vehicle for cislunar operations. Not the most comfortable ride, but those going would put up with such discomforts for the chance to do what few have done in space.

But I would hope we are setting our sights at having more than four people in space at any one time, which is one of my touchstones for critiques of any HSF hardware. Does it allow & promote the expansion of humanity out into space? With expansion in this case not meaning distance, but the number of people.

I don't understand this pure fantasy. We have not in anyway proven how to live and survive in deep space without the aid of earth. Until that is well known and proven, you can't start building spacecraft for 100s of people, its just too risky.

You are acting like we're on the verge of Star Trek technology or something.

Big picture though, if we are only thinking about having four people in space at a time, then sure, Orion can be a capable vehicle for cislunar operations. Not the most comfortable ride, but those going would put up with such discomforts for the chance to do what few have done in space.

But I would hope we are setting our sights at having more than four people in space at any one time, which is one of my touchstones for critiques of any HSF hardware. Does it allow & promote the expansion of humanity out into space? With expansion in this case not meaning distance, but the number of people.

I don't understand this pure fantasy.

??? You think having more than four people in space is pure fantasy?

Quote

We have not in anyway proven how to live and survive in deep space without the aid of earth.

I don't understand what you are responding to. Where did I make such a claim?

Quote

Until that is well known and proven, you can't start building spacecraft for 100s of people, its just too risky.

Again, where did I make such a claim?

Quote

You are acting like we're on the verge of Star Trek technology or something.

I guess you don't keep up with what NASA thinks is a near-term possibility?

If the ISS has shown us anything is that we can occupy space with more than four humans at a time, and I advocate that our goal should be to start focusing on expanding that number - I don't care what the rate is, as long as the numbers go up and not down.

Coastal is right about capsules(/reentry vehicles) not being ideal for BLEO travel. A OTV with attached habitat module would be better and far more flexible. But require fuel depots and in orbit refuelling, as BLEO -LEO DV is same as LEO-BLEO.

I'm reordering some of what you wrote:

Quote

Orion (or any other capsule) is fine.

I never said it wouldn't work. But it depends on what the goals are whether it fits the needs.

Quote

Disagree. It only takes 3 days to reach lunar orbit or back. That compares to a couple days to launch or return from ISS, and up to 2 weeks for Shuttle missions. Cislunar transport doesn't need extra space than is needed for typical LEO capsule missions.

If you're going to limit the passengers to people that have been highly trained, then sure, they can put up with each other for those few days. But that assumes we're not expanding the number of humans in space.

Quote

A separate cislunar transport craft (in addition to a capsule and a lander) doesn't make sense to me. Just another development project to amortize and another docking event.

Depends on how many people are going to be in transit. If there will only be four people per year, then no, you don't need anything else. But if you are going to be having a constant stream of people going out to a DSG, and then down to the Moon and/or on to other destinations, then pretty soon a four person disposable capsule starts becoming a limitation, not an asset.

This video was posted in the Commercial Crew Vehicles General section, but I thinks its worth posting here as it explains NASA's reason for the switch of the heat shield design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccJ6LpnSK20

The decision was made to switch from gunned honeycomb to blocks, similar to the SpaceX heatshield, but using Avcoat instead of PICA-X. The problem is that the Apollo heatshield suffers from cracks, which the EFT-1 heatshield also had. NASA fixed the cracks by drilling the cracks out and refilling them. The Apollo heat shield could also crack under stress during flight. Apollo analysis and tests showed that these cracks would not compromise the heat shield. There was also the question mark of whether the witness tests represented the strength of the heat shield. By going to blocks, cracks are much less prone to happening and the witness tests would be more accurate, but if there is a crack or the block debonds that is a catastrophic failure. The other advantage is that making the blocks and the shield can be done in parallel instead of in series as with plugged honeycomb. A disadvantage is ensuring the material used to fill the gaps between the blocks (a vulcanising material) should ablate at the same rate as the Avcoat.

Looking at the risk chart, NASA gives the same orange or high risk for both shields, so there is no increase in safety. Apollo had a greater risk of cracks, but the consequence was much less. Blocks have a much lower risk of cracks, but the consequence is catastrophic. Also, it seems to me that NASA overlooked an obvious means of reducing delay with honeycomb. Perform operations in pipeline. That is instead of

BBB+PPP>SSS BBB+PPP>SSS BBB+PPP>SSS

where B is the backshell manufacture, PPP is plugging the shield, and SSS is the complete shield. The pipeline method is as follows:

BBB+PPP>SSS BBB+PPP>SSS BBB+PPP>SSS

So, production of the first shield for EFT-1 takes a long time, but the shields after that are produced twice as fast. This seems to me to be a much faster and much more economic solution, since it avoids the very large development costs of a new shield and all its associated tooling.

Looking at the risk chart, NASA gives the same orange or high risk for both shields, so there is no increase in safety. Apollo had a greater risk of cracks, but the consequence was much less. Blocks have a much lower risk of cracks, but the consequence is catastrophic.

Quote

Heritage? Space X Dragon

Since the heritage they are copying is Dragon, why not use PicaX? Avcoat is known to crack...

Since the heritage they are copying is Dragon, why not use PicaX? Avcoat is known to crack...

Well, for one, though I can't speak to PicaX, Pica tends not to like getting hit by MMOD. Avcoat does much better.

Which is no concern for Orion given that its primary heatshield is fully nested inside the MMOD protected CMA (Crew Module Adapter)MMOD resistance was not the main driver for selecting Avcoat over Pica.

Search started in 2006... 3 year study for $150M. TRL3/4 raised to TRL5/6. Built capsule/heatshield for EFT-1. Flew it. Changed direction due to cracking, which they had also seen during study. Going to do blocks now, still using AVCOAT, which wasn't studied in block form.

In the mean time, PicaX was developed.Flown a dozen times without problems.TRL 9.

MMOD resistance was not the main driver for selecting Avcoat over Pica.

Your link notwithstanding (note that it says nothing about MMOD other than that testing was performed), this statement is not really all that accurate. It was a driver in the downselect. I have some direct knowledge in this field.

MMOD resistance was not the main driver for selecting Avcoat over Pica.

Your link notwithstanding (note that it says nothing about MMOD other than that testing was performed), this statement is not really all that accurate. It was a driver in the downselect. I have some direct knowledge in this field.

What letter in the word "main" did you not parse?

When I state that something was "not a main driver" it means that it was a driver, just not one of the main (as in: biggest) drivers.The link I provided does a nice job of summing-up what down-select evaluation metrics were used. And guess what: MMOD resistance is not even in that list.

When I state that something was "not a main driver" it means that it was a driver, just not one of the main (as in: biggest) drivers.The link I provided does a nice job of summing-up what down-select evaluation metrics were used. And guess what: MMOD resistance is not even in that list.

Sure it is. It's just hiding in the subparts of #7) Reliability. Good evidence for why it wasn't considered a main evaluation criterion. But, that doesn't mean it mightn't have been one of the main deciding points over which the systems were distinguished from each other if they were otherwise relatively evenly scored.

This afternoon, I'm leading a half-day review of the @NASA_Orion fire response concept of operations to determine if the planned design sufficiently supports Orion crew fighting & recovering from a fire.

https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1007301796535197701

Quote

While our engineering teams have designed everything to preclude the possibility of a fire through materials selection, atmosphere composition, power system safing, etc., we could never reduce the chance of a fire to 0.0%.

https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1007301798221271041

Quote

Much of the fire-fighting or protection equipment is going through design reviews now. The goal today is to see how all the individual component designs mesh together into an integrated con ops or to find gaps in the design and assess the associated risk.

https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1007301799538249731

Quote

Very important for us to understand where we are with these potentially life-saving capabilities as we try to finalize(-ish) the Orion design in the fall.

They got Orion to the White House as showcase for some Made in America parade: https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1021088510504316930, pretty strange choice given the service module is built by the Europeans....

They got Orion to the White House as showcase for some Made in America parade: https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1021088510504316930, pretty strange choice given the service module is built by the Europeans....

Here is more of the arrival: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/albums/72157669355997107

They got Orion to the White House as showcase for some Made in America parade: https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1021088510504316930, pretty strange choice given the service module is built by the Europeans....

I don't see the service module at all. That looks like the EFT-1 module, which didn't even have a real service module.

They got Orion to the White House as showcase for some Made in America parade: https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1021088510504316930, pretty strange choice given the service module is built by the Europeans....

I don't see the service module at all. That looks like the EFT-1 module, which didn't even have a real service module.

It is from EFT-1 and the LM built SM ETA that flew burned up on reentry.

They got Orion to the White House as showcase for some Made in America parade: https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1021088510504316930, pretty strange choice given the service module is built by the Europeans....

I don't see the service module at all. That looks like the EFT-1 module, which didn't even have a real service module.

I'll just quote @nasawatch which explains the irony better: http://nasawatch.com/archives/2018/07/that-madeinamer.html

Quote

Keith's note: And the eager #MadeInAmerica fans left out a paragraph "The Service Module is being built by Airbus Defence and Space." which is, of course, a European company using lots of European subcontractors. The European Service Module (ESM) is a rather crucial part of the overall system. How odd that the Coalition - and NASA - seem to forget to mention this fact in the furry of trying to hop on the latest White House slogan bandwagon.

Its also odd, that in the rush to tow piece of space hardware inside the White House gate that no one mentions the wholly American spacecraft being built by the private sector by Boeing, SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, Virgin Galactic, and Blue Origin. That is the real #MadeInAmerica story. And why wasn't the Commercial Spaceflight Federation invited to participate? Their members have more spacecraft and launch systems #MadeInAmerica than NASA does.

Not sure I understand the backlash. I would ague the Orion capsule, of which several are being built currently, is much more technically challenging and requires more R&D than the Service Module. Not that the SM isn't critically important, but NASAWATCh is just splitting hairs so they can make their usual, dull point over and over.

Boeing, SpaceX, Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada are building spacecraft that are 100% built in the U.S. of A.

Quote

I would ague the Orion capsule, of which several are being built currently, is much more technically challenging and requires more R&D than the Service Module.

No one was debating the percentage, but if you look at the stack the Service Module is a significant portion of the Orion transportation system. Even if it's an 80/20 content ratio, it's pretty close to 50/50 in size.

And regardless why ESA is building the Service Module, the Orion Command Module can't go anywhere without it - so NASA can't go anywhere in space without European help. So not as "Built in America" as commercial spacecraft.

The Trump administration just wanted to tout NASA, but in doing so they ignored the real American innovation taking place in space transportation.

Are you even sure that is a true statement? Did SpaceX or BO even provide any interest on being there? Knowing Trump, the event was likely ill planned without much notice.

NASA wasn't in control of the event, so why would you think I'm "bashing NASA"? Weird.

my "guess" is that Trump's people did not want anything but Orion there. this is a political not technical judgment...but my guess is that Trump will latch onto Orion like its his personal "cat" and hope like heck that it flies sometime in his first term as a symbol of "America being great"

Docking at LOP-G likely isn't the problem. Orion not only has to dock, it also has to manoeuvre space station components around and dock those as well, which I think is the likely reason it's deemed unreliable all of a sudden.

Docking at LOP-G likely isn't the problem. Orion not only has to dock, it also has to manoeuvre space station components around and dock those as well, which I think is the likely reason it's deemed unreliable all of a sudden.

Until there is more information available about this supposed problem any posts here, taking guesses at the cause, are pure conjecture.

Another NASA waste of money, it would be better if they could recover the capsule. The capsule could be checked for structural damage. Now NASA will have to do another test with the parachutes activated. I do not think that drop tests equal a deployment of the parachutes in an abort situation.

Another NASA waste of money, it would be better if they could recover the capsule. The capsule could be checked for structural damage. Now NASA will have to do another test with the parachutes activated. I do not think that drop tests equal a deployment of the parachutes in an abort situation.

There are going to be no more Orion abort tests, there's no plan or budget for them.

Another NASA waste of money, it would be better if they could recover the capsule. The capsule could be checked for structural damage. Now NASA will have to do another test with the parachutes activated. I do not think that drop tests equal a deployment of the parachutes in an abort situation.

It's not an actual Orion capsule, it's a boilerplate so there's no useful information to be gathered from the structure.

Another NASA waste of money, it would be better if they could recover the capsule. The capsule could be checked for structural damage. Now NASA will have to do another test with the parachutes activated. I do not think that drop tests equal a deployment of the parachutes in an abort situation.

The quoted post reflects a fine example of someone who didn't bother reading up on the subject before posting a clueless post.

Here are the six things wrong with said post:

1. This test is not a waste of money: NASA rightfully will want the Launch Abort System thoroughly tested before risking the lives of its astronauts.

2. The vehicle is not a capsule. It is a boilerplate that only simulates a number of key aspects of a real capsule. Such as outer moldline, mass, center of gravity, etc.

3. There is no need for the boilerplate to be recovered. All data collected by the instruments on board is going out - in realtime - as telemetry. And for back-up the data recorders will be ejected and recovered. Once the LAS has done its thing the boilerplate becomes useless. Recovering it would be a waste of money.

4. The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.

5. The author of the post is ill-informed. Drop tests are very much capable of simulating an in-flight abort scenario for parachute deployment. See my point 4.

6. The author of the post thinking that he/she knows better than the NASA- and contractor engineers who are actually involved in this test.

{snip}4. The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.{snip}

There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.

{snip}4. The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.{snip}

There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.

In 1965, when NASA's Apollo budget was $20.8B in today's money, NASA could afford to fly capsules with parachutes in their abort tests, to get that extra bit of data. Today, NASA is only getting $4.3B for SLS/Orion and is trying to minimise cost as much as they can. There are other examples where NASA is cutting costs, for example, having the first flight of the crew environmental control system go all the way to the Moon, instead of first testing in LEO, like Apollo 7 did in 1968.

Yes, but that was the pad-abort test which is not quite valid for in-flight abort scenario for multiple reasons:

- Very early design iteration of the CPAS (Capsule Parachute Assembly System). The flight CPAS is substantially improved compared to the one used on PA-1.- Different flight regime (much lower altitude, lower velocity, different decceleration levels, etc)

Therefore, several of the CPAS dev and qual PTV drop-test explicitely explored and characterized in-flight abort chute deployment scenarios. These test were much more representative for in-flight abort chute deployment than was PA-1.

{snip}4. The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.{snip}

There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.

Emphasis mine.

Has already been done thru the PTV drop tests.

I do not require a full capsule with life support just equip the abort boilerplate with the latest CPAS (Capsule Parachute Assembly System). The two things are meant to work together in the correct sequence.

{snip}4. The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.{snip}

There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.

Emphasis mine.

Has already been done thru the PTV drop tests.

I do not require a full capsule with life support just equip the abort boilerplate with the latest CPAS (Capsule Parachute Assembly System). The two things are meant to work together in the correct sequence.

Emphasis mine.

It seems to me that you think you know better than the engineers that are actually involved in the development of Orion.Having said that I will add a bit more explanation to aid in your education. CPAS working in the correct sequence with the LAS has already been proven on PA-1.The two systems work in a specified sequence, but activation of the second system (CPAS) is not triggered by jettison of the first system (LAS).That applies to both pad abort and ascent abort.

This disconnect is exactly one of the reasons why testing of the CPAS under in-flight-abort conditions can be decoupled from flying an in-flight abort test.

We had an outbreak of political sniping. It referenced previous outbreaks that hadn't been cleaned. It's too disruptive to go back to July and delete stuff... but all the more recent stuff is gone. Whether Obama deliberately snubbed Houston by not giving them a shuttle? Oddly, that's off topic for an Orion thread. Crazy I know...

{snip}4. The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.{snip}

There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.

Emphasis mine.

Has already been done thru the PTV drop tests.

I do not require a full capsule with life support just equip the abort boilerplate with the latest CPAS (Capsule Parachute Assembly System). The two things are meant to work together in the correct sequence.

Emphasis mine.

It seems to me that you think you know better than the engineers that are actually involved in the development of Orion.

EASILY. Neither the CPAS nor the LAS design engineers are in charge of the entire sequence. That will be some manager somewhere.

I am reminded of the unplanned roll the Falcon 9 had on its first flight caused by the exhaust from the gas generators. Everything worked but not together.https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a5852/spacex-falcon9-first-flight (https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a5852/spacex-falcon9-first-flight)

Quote

Having said that I will add a bit more explanation to aid in your education. CPAS working in the correct sequence with the LAS has already been proven on PA-1.The two systems work in a specified sequence, but activation of the second system (CPAS) is not triggered by jettison of the first system (LAS).That applies to both pad abort and ascent abort.

This disconnect is exactly one of the reasons why testing of the CPAS under in-flight-abort conditions can be decoupled from flying an in-flight abort test.

A drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.

A drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.

Why?

The LAS covers the top of the vehicle so the parachutes cannot deploy until the LAS has separated from the capsule. Plenty of ways things can go wrong, or slowly, there.

p.s. As a test of the reentry systems no LAS is valid since it would have departed several days before. As a milestone test of a sub-assembly of the abort system it is valid but not of a test of the entire system.

A drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.

Why?

The LAS covers the top of the vehicle so the parachutes cannot deploy until the LAS has separated from the capsule. Plenty of ways things can go wrong, or slowly, there.

Emphasis mine.

That has already been flight-tested twice: PA-1 and EFT-1. And will flight-tested again on AA-2. It is not a concern for deployment of chutes under ascent-abort conditions.

Again: if there was any validity in your concerns regarding no-chutes on AA-2 than NASA would be doing the test with chutes.The fact that NASA chooses to do the test without chutes serves to invalidate your concerns.

A drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.

Why?

The LAS covers the top of the vehicle so the parachutes cannot deploy until the LAS has separated from the capsule. Plenty of ways things can go wrong, or slowly, there.

Emphasis mine.

That has already been flight-tested twice: PA-1 and EFT-1. And will flight-tested again on AA-2. It is not a concern for deployment of chutes under ascent-abort conditions.

Again: if there was any validity in your concerns regarding no-chutes on AA-2 than NASA would be doing the test with chutes.The fact that NASA chooses to do the test without chutes serves to invalidate your concerns.

Correct. NASA retired several concerns after various drop and propulsive tests so several planned abort tests were cancelled although hardware is available if cancelled tests end up needed but would delay EM-1 and EM-2 because their LAS's would be needed to perform additional propulsive abort tests.

Several of the details of a real Orion are missing or incorrect. For example: the brackets that are holding the folded SAW's in place, prior to deployment, are not present in this digital model.Also: the thickness of the SAW panels is uniform, whereas on an actual Orion the innermost SAW panels are over twice as thick as the outermost SAW panels.The Earth-orbit Orion is missing the white coating on the backside of the SAW's. Uncoated black backside of SAW's is applicable to BEO Orions only.The CM portion is missing a host of details on the docking system, CMA and backshell.

Orion is NASA’s next spacecraft to send humans into space. It is designed to send astronauts farther into space than ever before, beyond the Moon to asteroids and even Mars.

ESA has designed and is overseeing the development of Orion’s service module, the part of the spacecraft that supplies air, electricity and propulsion. Much like a train engine pulls passenger carriages and supplies power, the European Service Module will take the Orion capsule to its destination and back.

The Orion spacecraft is built by NASA with ESA providing the service module. The arrangement stems from the international partnership for the International Space Station. NASA’s decision to cooperate with ESA on a critical element for the mission is a strong sign of trust and confidence in ESA’s capabilities.

More than 20 companies around Europe are now building the European Service Module as NASA works on Orion and the Space Launch System.